5 ms·

"More likely though it was passed down for generations and they did nothing to deserve it, I find that situation absolutely insane" It's not insane for people

"More likely though it was passed down for generations and they did nothing to deserve it, I find that situation absolutely insane" It's not insane for people to pass their property from one person to another. Arbitrary definitions of 'earned it' are far, far scarier. Surely, it's important to consider issues such as private wealth, inheritance etc. but the OP is effectively correct, this issue turns into 'mob rule' very, very quickly. In 2019 we forget this, because we don't have any such topsy-turvy situations in living memory, but the 19th and 20th centuries were full of blood and fury over this kind of stuff. Everywhere East of Berlin does however have this in 'living memory'. Ask a Polish, Ukrainian, Czech, Russian etc. immigrant over the age of 60 about it for an earful. Or someone Chinese over 60 as well. Or Cuban. 'Private Property' is a very, very careful issue.

int_19h 8y ago
I think most would agree that property that was stolen or taken by force from somebody who produced it, is not earned. So it's not an arbitrary definition. And if that is so, why would passing it from generation to generation make any difference to that determination? I am a Russian immigrant, by the way, born in the USSR back when it was still a thing. I don't have much sympathy for the kind of wealth redistribution that was practiced there. But it's important to understand that the reason why it happened was because inequality was allowed to grow high enough that a sufficient number of people in the country could be motivated to revolt, because they felt the risks justified the potential rewards. And it doesn't even matter if they were right or wrong - the point is, if you are afraid of that history repeating, then you should support measures that prevent the conditions that caused it from happening again. And that involves acknowledging what the society deems fair and unfair, when it comes to property ownership.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  1) Applying notions of ownership to systems 1000 years ago - is totally arbitrary. 2) The Sovereign's holding are, and always have been something different than a regular person's holdings. They have always beens somewhat matters of State. 3) Today, the monarchies are constitutional. They do not 'own' the land as you and I would 'own' land. 4) Most wealthy people today did not inherit their land from people 100's of years ago who got it from plunder - this is ridiculous. About 1/2 of the wealthy people today are 'self made'. 5) Almost everyone in modern civilization has access to opportunity, and as you'll notice from this thread, 90% of Canadian land holding for example is by the government, i.e. commons - there is plenty of land and resources to go around. Everyone can participate. Inequality today is not even comparable to what is is even 100 years ago. People receive free healthcare, almost free banking services, cheap water, cheap transport, cheap entertainment, cheap clothing, cheap access to information, free social solidarity.

int_19h 8y ago

I think most would agree that property that was stolen or taken by force from somebody who produced it, is not earned. So it's not an arbitrary definition. And if that is so, why would passing it from generation to generation make any difference to that determination? I am a Russian immigrant, by the way, born in the USSR back when it was still a thing. I don't have much sympathy for the kind of wealth redistribution that was practiced there. But it's important to understand that the reason why it happened was because inequality was allowed to grow high enough that a sufficient number of people in the country could be motivated to revolt, because they felt the risks justified the potential rewards. And it doesn't even matter if they were right or wrong - the point is, if you are afraid of that history repeating, then you should support measures that prevent the conditions that caused it from happening again. And that involves acknowledging what the society deems fair and unfair, when it comes to property ownership.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
1) Applying notions of ownership to systems 1000 years ago - is totally arbitrary. 2) The Sovereign's holding are, and always have been something different than a regular person's holdings. They have always beens somewhat matters of State. 3) Today, the monarchies are constitutional. They do not 'own' the land as you and I would 'own' land. 4) Most wealthy people today did not inherit their land from people 100's of years ago who got it from plunder - this is ridiculous. About 1/2 of the wealthy people today are 'self made'. 5) Almost everyone in modern civilization has access to opportunity, and as you'll notice from this thread, 90% of Canadian land holding for example is by the government, i.e. commons - there is plenty of land and resources to go around. Everyone can participate. Inequality today is not even comparable to what is is even 100 years ago. People receive free healthcare, almost free banking services, cheap water, cheap transport, cheap entertainment, cheap clothing, cheap access to information, free social solidarity.