3 ms·
Good question. I would say, collective ownership. A country can be thought of as 'owned' by its people, with the rules of ownership agreed upon by the owners th
by DarkKomunalec 10y ago
Good question. I would say, collective ownership. A country can be thought of as 'owned' by its people, with the rules of ownership agreed upon by the owners themselves (everyone owns an equal share -> 1 person 1 vote, ownership may not be transfered, but is given upon being born in the country or to an owner, and so on). This way, a country reduces to property. Should not the owners of property be free to manage it in their own favour?
- yummyfajitas 10y agoIn that case, I suppose it's reasonable for a historically white suburb (with all white owners) to create rules for themselves that keep blacks out? That way, a municipality reduces to property. Should not the owners of property be free to manage it in their own favor?
- DarkKomunalec 10y agoIt is not. Nothing in the thought experiment implies the laws of the country are not superior to those of the municipality. And as those laws require the country to treat all its citizens equaly and/or explicitly forbid discrimination, a municiaplity could not legally create such rules. This is not a hypothetical - the collective ownership way of thinking applies just fine to the US, where such discrimination was ruled illegal.