2 ms·
You wouldn't need to abolish property rights. Another way to look at it is that you'd essentially transfer the cost of social programs to people through insuran
by avar 11y ago
You wouldn't need to abolish property rights. Another way to look at it is that you'd essentially transfer the cost of social programs to people through insurance instead of through taxation.
Additionally you'd create a pressure in society to increase wealth equality / charity and opportunities for the needy / poor, since nobody likes to be stolen from all the time.
Right now the poor are an abstract problem for many, especially the rich, if you ran the risk of being stolen from directly maybe you'd have a stake in increasing wealth equality. Or maybe you'd just hire private security.
It might actually be a better system, or it might not, who knows?
- aninhumer 11y ago>You wouldn't need to abolish property rights. Another way to look at it is that you'd essentially transfer the cost of social programs to people through insurance instead of through taxation. Unless you're suggesting everyone be allowed to steal, you're going to spend as much effort (if not more) working out which thefts were legitimate as you are working out who is allowed welfare. Not to mention you're replacing a predictable system with ad hoc chaos. (Maybe insurance can smooth it a little, but then that's just further overhead.) >Or maybe you'd just hire private security. Private security is largely toothless if they can't hand people over to the police. Even if they throw you out, you can just come back the next day and try again.