thomblake comments on How To Have Things Correctly - Less Wrong

57 Post author: Alicorn 17 October 2012 06:10AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (218)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: shminux 17 October 2012 02:54:23PM 0 points [-]

You seem to conflate owning with sharing. The original meaning is "mine and no one else's". Lots of people derive pleasure from having something others don't, be at an art collection, an antique car or even a partner.

Comment author: thomblake 17 October 2012 03:28:37PM 2 points [-]

You seem to conflate owning with sharing.

No, it's conflating ownership with potential-ownership. The idea is, I can store apples at the grocery store or in my pantry - there is basically no chance that I will go to pick up my apples at the grocery store and they won't be available for sale, so it's just trivial that I haven't spent the money on them yet.

Comment author: Desrtopa 19 October 2012 11:29:50PM 2 points [-]

It seems pretty silly to conflate the two when ownership implies that it is no longer an opportunity cost to acquire "your" possession, as the cost has already been paid. If you have a million dollars, you potentially own any of all the million dollar possessions on the market, but only one of them at most. Owning all of them would be very different.

Comment author: Ritalin 29 October 2012 08:57:15PM 1 point [-]

Subjectively, though, I for one get that feeling. It's like "within my reach" and "owned by me" were equivalent to my brain on some level. And, when, once I've made my purchase, I find my money diminished by that same amount, I find that I feel cheated, somehow. Like accumulated money should work like an access clearance threshold, rather than a reservoir of resources across space and time. Which is economically absurd...

Comment author: shminux 17 October 2012 03:50:25PM 0 points [-]

The comment I was replying to said

I am the owner of a 16 inch telescope, a jet ski, a table with a gourmet meal at the best restaurant in the city

None of those qualify as "potential-ownership", they are a shared-access resource.

Comment author: wedrifid 17 October 2012 03:58:30PM 1 point [-]

None of those qualify as "potential-ownership", they are a shared-access resource.

Is there something about "potential-ownership" that gives it a different meaning to "an item that I could potentially buy and thereby become the owner of"?

Comment author: thomblake 17 October 2012 06:10:56PM 0 points [-]

I'm confused. How are jet skis relevantly different from apples?

Comment author: shminux 17 October 2012 06:49:47PM 0 points [-]

From the context, roystgnr meant renting jet skis for a day, rather than owning and maintaining them. You can hardly do that with apples.

Comment author: thomblake 18 October 2012 01:48:06PM 0 points [-]

No, really.

In some sense I am the owner of a [...] jet ski [...] because at any time I could go out and buy them if the whim struck hard enough.

(emphasis added)

Buy, not rent.

Comment author: shminux 18 October 2012 03:54:26PM 0 points [-]

I interpreted it as buying a service, not an object, but it's up to roystgnr to clarify.

Comment author: roystgnr 30 October 2012 05:37:53PM 1 point [-]

My recollection and interpretation was buying/objects not renting/services. Picking an object like a jet ski that is probably more often rented than bought was probably a misleading choice of example, sorry.

Anyway, it's not up to me to clarify anymore - gwern found the original quote, so you can debate the interpretation of that rather than of my half-recollected paraphrasing. :-)