Edit: To elaborate, "civilization" the way I see it has simply put the guardrails of due process around these things. We're still nakedly competing with each other, and in-groups are often bent on the destruction of out-groups. We just have laws and courts to make sure things don't get too far out of hand. It's peaceful coexistence not mass cooperation.
The article wasn't arguing that a paradise of communal resource sharing with out limitations has ever existed. It was arguing that property wasn't the limitation and that people had access to the basics they needed to survive. And there are many, many examples of societies that existed where resources were communally shared and every one had access to the things they needed. Many of which involved various methods of communal decision making as well.
This idea that humanity's state of nature is barbarous, brutal competition is an a historical myth that has been used to justify some of the worst abuses of the powerful.
right up until their neighbors waltzed over and took it from them. Talk about rose colored glasses!
My point isn't that the past was some rose colored time. Only that false assumptions about human nature are frequently used justify deeply harmful policies and institutions. And that many people speak about how humans behaved in "that past" with very little actual anthropological or historical knowledge.
It is, in fact, much safer to be alive today than any other point in history. And a much lower chance of dying from violence due to other humans.
In fact there's a whole book about this if you're interested: https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/...
“Things are better for me than they were before humankind literally existed” is such a hilariously meaningless thing to say. Why not go back further? Things are better now than they were before the earth’s surface cooled and formed a crust.
It would be utterly meaningless cruft to point out that things are better for humans than they were before the big bang.
This is an ahistorical understanding, that misinterprets economics, history, and sociology.
This is plain false. Your ape ancestor was born with free access to trees, fruits etc. Take away that and you created poverty.
> there has never been a paradise where resources are communally owned
Wrong again. The ape is a good example.
EDIT: Added /s in case it wasn't obvious...
Property rights, money, and rent are a strictly superior solution, especially among billions of apes.
Defending a territory with your life might be stressful and I never claimed it's good life but it something any animal can do without having to go against some other animal that inherited vast land from their ancestor.
TFA is pretty clear and yes some people here are trying very hard not to see the point.
This is silly. First of all, only wealth can be created or destroyed, not poverty, which is the absence of wealth. My ape ancestor swinging from a tree without easy access to food, clothing, shelter or medicine is poorer than I am, full stop.
Second of all, there has never been a paradise where resources are communally owned without clear limitations on the use and distribution of those resources, usually at the behest of corrupt, tyrannical or murderous leaders.
Third of all, the existence of a monetary cost or private property is moot when it comes to defining ownership. An eagle doesn't use money or property laws to own his nest, but it's not like any other eagle can use it without cost.