5 ms·

> a more equitable way of distributing the benefits That sounds much nicer than "abolition of property rights," which does not get you anywhere near where you'

• TaylorAlexander 11y ago
  You're making an assumption that doesn't follow from my comment. Did I suggest we abolish property rights? I merely asked a question about how property rights relate to coercion. The solution may be to keep property rights, but to understand their place in society. I just want to stimulate that conversation. We act as if property rights are absolute, but perhaps they should not be used to keep a hungry person from food, or a homeless person from shelter? Perhaps intellectual property rights shouldn't be used to keep a person from repairing their tractor? We're already having a discussion in the US about whether or not people should be able to access health care without exchanging their property to get it. Is it so radical to ask the question about food, shelter, and (inherently not scarce) digital goods?
  • brownbat 11y ago
    > You're making an assumption that doesn't follow from my comment. Usually when someone makes a comparison to coercion, I assume they're against it. That seems like a fairer reading than, say, taking a pronoun someone used, changing its meaning, then using scare quotes to signify you know you're misrepresenting their point to dodge their argument. But let's set aside the mechanics of the discussion. We've moved the goal posts to: "Sometimes property rights are bad in extreme cases. They're really useful in other cases. The defense of necessity, which allows the use of property to provide shelter or food to people who need it, was a grand idea." Sounds like we all agree and can go home.