3 ms·
Okay, so research the author to better understand the context. He rejects the Hobbesian ideal that a social contract, enforced by a central power, provides crit
by rrggrr 9y ago
Okay, so research the author to better understand the context. He rejects the Hobbesian ideal that a social contract, enforced by a central power, provides critical scaffolding upon which wealth and prosperity can exist in a society. On this point he confuses the existence of Hobbes Leviathan, with how and where that power is applied. Removing property rights isn't just unrealistic, it doesn't work where its been applied.
The author also advocates for the employee's "right to say no". On this point I agree, in that employees should be able to accumulate wealth and have options. There should not be a one-way street.
- ktta 9y agoNo one is advocating for removal of property rights, sheesh. The author is pointing out the realities of life today, and I'm just surprised how you tend to bring in these complexities to divert such a simple point. The many ideas that people had a couple centuries ago don't hold up so well anymore. The population of the world when the book you refer to was published (17 century) was 8% of what it is currently. Resource utilization was a fraction of what it is today. Today natural resources are dwindling and powerful people are quicker than ever at capturing anything of value. There is an imbalance in what one can do with their best efforts today, and that's not fair. Acknowledging the faults in our current society is a better path to take rather than advocating for the arguments put forward by someone who probably couldn't fathom today's world.