4 ms·

I see what you're saying, but I think we disagree on WHY it's a non-question. One person can't lay claim to all private property through voluntary exchange. W

I see what you're saying, but I think we disagree on WHY it's a non-question. One person can't lay claim to all private property through voluntary exchange. What was he exchanging for "all" the property? My point is that the free exchange of goods (property, services, etc...) in conjunction with a strong adherence to private property rights is the least problematic method of allocating "property". It's the least problematic in terms of making sure "property" or resources are used for their most "effective" use as well as the least problematic in terms of maximum liberty for the individual (and therefore the collective).

clavalle 11y ago
> One person can't lay claim to all private property through voluntary exchange. What was he exchanging for "all" the property? Yet, that is what is how things are currently trending if you change one person to one group. When you own the means to produce what others need for their survival you can exchange those consumables for more production capacity -- the one side gets things that are valuable for a short time and fade to zero value and the other side gets things that increase in value or produce more value over time. It is a virtuous/vicious spiral (depending on what side of the equation you are on). So, not all property is created equal either.