This is an article just for you. Yes. It’s published here on the Familiafeliz community website. This website is accessed from time to time by many friends. We keep them up to date on current developments and projects. Thus, most articles, written and edited by one or a few, are aimed at the many out there who use the media to learn about what’s happening here.
But this article is only aimed at one person. So, it may be that you are that person, but it would also not be unlikely if you were not the recipient of this message. What would then be a good reason to continue reading? A good reason might be to continue reading to find out if you could be the person addressed here. And if, at the end, you think you aren’t, to ask yourself why not.
When we founded the Familiafeliz community many years ago, we wanted to bring to life an idea of how people could organize themselves beyond economics, without hierarchies, without power constellations, without profit-taking, without fear.
We wanted to establish a holistic, open idea that would find its own way through people’s minds and hearts.
Above all, we also wanted to create a community characterized by the fact that the places (of this community) woo people, and not the other way around.
Historically, our community grew out of the experience of a temporary international community whose goal was to rebuild CASAdelDRAGON. And life in this temporary community—usually around Easter and for 1-2 months in the summer of each year—was strongly influenced by the life partnership of two founding members.
Along the way, there were far fewer decisions to be made than one would like to claim in retrospect. The ego wants recognition, but in doing so, it often obscures the fact that success is always something for the many, and rarely something for the individual.
And success is always about timing. Sometimes it was right, but often it wasn’t. In retrospect, it’s always easy to find a common thread running through a story. Then everything makes sense. Anecdotes follow one another in an entertaining way, and in the end, everyone comes to the conclusion that – in this case – things couldn’t have turned out any other way.
It’s not just the temporary victors who practice falsifying history; people as a whole also tend to repeatedly tell history in such a way that they come out looking good, and that they couldn’t have acted any differently and thus essentially did the best they could.
It’s more likely, however, that everyone involved would have told this story differently, had they only been willing to publish their perspective here. They were always and still are invited to do so. While some viewed this platform as a news blog for a decentralized community, it is much more a document of the Zeitgeist, which manifests itself in the sum of subjective views, when they are published.
There we have it again, the difference between public opinion and publicly published opinion. Only in this case, it’s up to the actors and auditors themselves to decide whether they want to publish something.
This article is about the words trust and confidence, and about the words property and ownership. And it’s about what connects these two pairs of words.
Many people use the word trust very often. They usually also express appreciation. This appreciation also signals openness, a willingness to disarm, a willingness to abandon lines of resistance in order to be more receptive to the social, human, and interpersonal. I have the impression that this trust is mentioned and named, but that there is always a fear or anxiety about possible misuse, and that the person in whom the trust is placed is being granted an advance. This word thus extends into the realm of expectations.
Expectations are describable notions of expected behavior, in light of one’s own prior commitment.
I consciously tend to use the word confidence in my communication. I often receive special attention during conversations. Especially people who like to trust are irritated by the use of this other word. I like to use this attention to emphasize the essential difference for me and then explain why I prefer this word much better at this point in the communication.
Like trust, confidence is a mental concept that simulates the future. With trust, its occurrence is not only expected; it is practically morally required. Failure to fulfill it is often described as a breach of trust. After one’s initial effort, the expected result must occur; otherwise, one has been betrayed, is the often-argued argument. People who often use trust explicitly have also often been disappointed. Thus, the mental reward system pre-programmed the release of endophene even when disappointment occurs again. Then it happens again, and the victim remains comfortably in their comfort zone.
Confidence as a co-player—not as an adversary—releases the person so described into a freedom of action. When I trust someone to do something, I am only describing my simulation of their ability, but I am not saying anything about whether the application of that ability—which is positive for me—will then occur in the future.
I trust you to make me happy. That is a gift without a double bottom. It is not a Trojan horse as a vehicle for my wishes and desires. It does not restrict. It leaves the future open, for both. The person addressed in this way is capable of behaving exactly as he or she wishes or differently. They remain free in their reactions. I myself do not create expectations that, on the one hand, cast a veil over the reality of the reaction of the person so addressed, as I observe it; on the other hand, I remain open to neutrally observe and accept the predictable consequences of the other person’s reaction. I relieve the other person of burdens, and I relieve myself of burdens, when I communicate confidence instead of trust.
The tiger in the Savannah owns the hunted game. It drags it back to the tribe, takes its share, and leaves the rest to the clan, especially its close relatives. It marks the territory in which it currently resides. It claims the portion of the prey it consumes as its own property.
Early humans also knew something like possession. The voluntary, consensual or non-consensual claim to immediate, autonomous, and unrestricted use.
How the word “property” may have found its way into human thought structures is not so easy to discern. It appears to be an intermediate level, intentionally inserted between natural law and the moral idea of taking possession as a socially accepted act within the clan and community. This begs the question: by whom? Was it the chief, who, via the detour of religion and his authority to explain, interpret, and apply it based on religion, who created the idea that there was something more fundamental than ownership? And if so, what was his intention?
If property, as stated in the law, obligates and grants in return the sovereignty to temporarily lend one’s possessions – often in exchange – it declares a levy to the owner as legitimate. This explains why the introduction of the concept of property had value for a small segment of a community that, as stewards of the greater good, felt called upon to allocate or even withdraw this property.
Property as an idea is therefore an instrument of domination. And it is associated with expectations that it is the owner’s responsibility to fulfill.
In many so-called Western countries, the concepts of possession and ownership are unclearly defined and often confused, not least to obscure the true balance of power. Anyone who loses their home because they don’t pay taxes is probably just an owner, even if they are persuaded that they own it so that they can then be held morally responsible.
In international law, a state is considered sovereign if it can declare a state of emergency. In so-called democracies, the people are often referred to as sovereign. In recent years, this has seemed more like a misnomer. In ancient Greece, democracy was the cultural response to the ongoing murders within the ranks of the elite in the struggle for power. Back then, 1% of the population had granted themselves a kind of arena for intellect so as not to constantly be at each other’s throats. 99% of the population, mostly slaves, were never part of this opinion-forming process.
In ancient law, anyone who was allowed to carry weapons in public was free.
A true owner can be assumed if their availability is considered unrestricted, their destruction is permitted, and their continued use requires neither an explanation nor justification, nor a tax payment.
Squatting is thus a second-order seizure, since even the so-called owner is in reality merely a possessor who loses the property if they fail to pay taxes. In this way, only the state is actually the owner, and as an immature lackey, a guardian is required, which the respective elite is happy to provide.
In the tension between possession and ownership, just as with the concept of trust, expectations operate. The notarized transfer of ownership expects tax payment and the maintenance and preservation of a temporary right granted to the public (which generally also secures the right of first refusal). The temporary transfer of ownership to the tenant of the property is organized contractually and formulates a host of expectations associated with the transfer. Likewise, the owner expects the owner to maintain the property taken into possession.
Possession as a mental concept can still be imagined without expectations. Ownership, not so much. A child running across a meadow reaches for a flower. Without the concepts of possession and ownership, it grasps and appropriates the flower. Subdue the world as a mandate; know the unexpecting taking of possession, but not ownership.
This is not a call to violence. This is not a critique of capitalism. This is not a fact-checked narrative for or against anything. It’s nothing more—but also nothing less—than a mind game about the dominance of thought concepts in our heads, the consequences for their creators, for their carriers, and for the target audience, who—reflectively or not—adopt it and pass it on as a meme to future generations.
The thesis is bold. What would it be like in a world where trust is rejected and confidence prevails, where property as a concept is discarded and possession takes its place, accompanied by the moral appreciation of one’s own clan? It would be a better world!
But, and this is where things come to a full circle for you. Would it be your world?
… read also the reply to this article from Andreas here.
