3 ms·
But you choose to ignore the other extreme. I mean that of 100% abolition of property rights, i.e., a recipe for anarchy. Of course you can truly believe in pro
by vixen99 11y ago
But you choose to ignore the other extreme. I mean that of 100% abolition of property rights, i.e., a recipe for anarchy. Of course you can truly believe in property rights when they are set according to an evolved legal constitution. That's how human beings work to form a better society. There is no such thing as 'trouble from a philosophical point of view' unless one thinks that the space between ALL and NOTHING is blank.
- sytelus 11y agoI'm not against property right at all. I was just making logical argument to poke holes to show that something is at miss in asserting in its puritanical form. The property rights are generational because of ability to transfer those rights. This immediately establishes generational lock down if resources are limited while keeping less fortunate out. This applies to resources such as real estate and political power however not to resources that are unlimited such as creativity and innovation. A large number of people currently live in poverty because there is simply no way for them to acquire education, nourishment or healthcare because they couldn't chose their parents correctly. This doesn't necessarily imply re-distribution of wealth or socialization programs or welfare state or guaranteed basic income or even charities as the solution. In fact, they are almost certainly not the solution. I think we do not yet have correct model for economic rights and rewards established for modern human society. It is also likely that purely economic solution does not even exist given the innate human nature. In that case, the technology might be our only savior where by one day we can have virtually unlimited energy source and robotic savants to create age of abundance.