4 ms·

I can see the logic of your example, but I'm with the radical person - I don't think the rich should be allowed to create "no peasants allowed zones." For many,

I can see the logic of your example, but I'm with the radical person - I don't think the rich should be allowed to create "no peasants allowed zones." For many, many reasons, but chief among which is that maybe if the hyper rich have to share some of the public experiences we all have, they'll be more inclined to contribute to the improvement of those resources.

taeric 8y ago
I think your difficulty will be in coming up with a way that allows for any private parks, then. And, by extension, a private yard. You can almost get away with just defining this as something only single families can do, but then you run afoul of some genuine community ownership things. Want to band together into a mutual HOA so that you and your neighbors can afford to maintain a private pool? Why/why not? Edit: I suspect I agree with the radical on this. :)
- komali2 8y ago
  I also sense the slippery slope present, but my understanding is that many countries have beach-specific laws without sliding into "no private property," so the evidence is such that the slippery slope does not exist. As for parks, the USA has sorted that already with the national and state park system. Sometimes those get huge land donations from private citizens as well. Buuuut personally, I am of the "abolish private property" mindset anyway, I think that's way out of scope for here though. It's for the same reasons I've listed previously.
coolso 8y ago
> maybe if the hyper rich have to share some of the public experiences we all have, they'll be more inclined to contribute to the improvement of those resources. I agree, but couldn't it be argued it could go the opposite way too? If you're forced to be exposed to something, even if you're ambivalent towards it initially, often times that can breed contempt.
- komali2 8y ago
  Haha, well, I'm pretty sure aristocrat contempt for the poor is ancient and prevalent enough under all previous private property systems to risk trying something new.
colechristensen 8y ago
>no peasants allowed zones Isn't this exactly what private property is? You don't have to be particularly wealthy to own land, and keeping the peasants off of it does not seem controversial. Is the area near the ocean special? As well as some kinds of wilderness? Well, maybe. I'm from a land-locked place which was almost 100% owned and occupied for hundreds of miles so limits on private ownership anywhere are a bit of a foreign cultural concept. I have no problem at all with a state restricting ownership near an ocean and enforcing it, I just don't think it's a self-evident inalienable right.
- komali2 8y ago
  >You don't have to be particularly wealthy to own land, I disagree with this point, it is untrue for a great deal of Americans and especially those without families to band together to get property. To that point, that is precisely why I am opposed to private property at all, but I recognize that's an unpopular idea. My main objective is, why are there peasants at all? I don't believe its a requirement at this technology level. >Is the area near the ocean special? It's special enough for California, Oregon, and many countries, to have laws that specifically make all beaches public property. I feel similarly about any stretch of wilderness, and so too does the United States, enough to cordon off thousands of acres for national parks. They probably need borders because it's easier to draw a line around what a beach is than "stretch of wilderness."

taeric 8y ago

I think your difficulty will be in coming up with a way that allows for any private parks, then. And, by extension, a private yard. You can almost get away with just defining this as something only single families can do, but then you run afoul of some genuine community ownership things. Want to band together into a mutual HOA so that you and your neighbors can afford to maintain a private pool? Why/why not? Edit: I suspect I agree with the radical on this. :)

komali2 8y ago
I also sense the slippery slope present, but my understanding is that many countries have beach-specific laws without sliding into "no private property," so the evidence is such that the slippery slope does not exist. As for parks, the USA has sorted that already with the national and state park system. Sometimes those get huge land donations from private citizens as well. Buuuut personally, I am of the "abolish private property" mindset anyway, I think that's way out of scope for here though. It's for the same reasons I've listed previously.

coolso 8y ago

> maybe if the hyper rich have to share some of the public experiences we all have, they'll be more inclined to contribute to the improvement of those resources. I agree, but couldn't it be argued it could go the opposite way too? If you're forced to be exposed to something, even if you're ambivalent towards it initially, often times that can breed contempt.

komali2 8y ago
Haha, well, I'm pretty sure aristocrat contempt for the poor is ancient and prevalent enough under all previous private property systems to risk trying something new.

colechristensen 8y ago

>no peasants allowed zones Isn't this exactly what private property is? You don't have to be particularly wealthy to own land, and keeping the peasants off of it does not seem controversial. Is the area near the ocean special? As well as some kinds of wilderness? Well, maybe. I'm from a land-locked place which was almost 100% owned and occupied for hundreds of miles so limits on private ownership anywhere are a bit of a foreign cultural concept. I have no problem at all with a state restricting ownership near an ocean and enforcing it, I just don't think it's a self-evident inalienable right.

komali2 8y ago
>You don't have to be particularly wealthy to own land, I disagree with this point, it is untrue for a great deal of Americans and especially those without families to band together to get property. To that point, that is precisely why I am opposed to private property at all, but I recognize that's an unpopular idea. My main objective is, why are there peasants at all? I don't believe its a requirement at this technology level. >Is the area near the ocean special? It's special enough for California, Oregon, and many countries, to have laws that specifically make all beaches public property. I feel similarly about any stretch of wilderness, and so too does the United States, enough to cordon off thousands of acres for national parks. They probably need borders because it's easier to draw a line around what a beach is than "stretch of wilderness."