> Would you support a bill forcing owners of large houses to set aside some of their space for the homeless? Would you give your squatter a vote equal to your o

> Would you support a bill forcing owners of large houses to set aside some of their space for the homeless? Would you give your squatter a vote equal to your own in matters of deciding how to arrange the furniture and paint the walls? Quantity has a quality all its own. You can't analogize the massive scale of enormous wealth to a typical scale of a smallholding without making serious errors. You're making those serious errors in your analogy. If you're one of a club of billionaires whose large estates take up all the land, then yes, you should be forced to set aside space for the homeless. Similarly, if you have massive control over the economy, you have no right to oligarchy. You need to move over and make way for democracy. > If I bought a share in a company fair and square, I bought that share came with a certain expectation of control. That share is my property. Giving control to people who haven't bought control fair and square is a taking of my property, and as a general heuristic, we should be extremely skeptical of taking people's property for some kind of ostensible good. Property rights aren't the highest holy, up on some sacred pedestal somewhere. They should only exist to the extent that they serve the public good.