5 ms·

I don't understand how you can ever have a just society if society can deem at any point that your property is too valuable for you to hold anymore. Of course t

I don't understand how you can ever have a just society if society can deem at any point that your property is too valuable for you to hold anymore. Of course they happens in society today, but I don't see how making it easier for property to be forcibly reallocated would help create a more just society.

yonran 7y ago
Do you realize that the reason the squatter abandoned the domain (instead of keeping it forever) is the $8/year registry fee? My question is why should the squatter pay only $8 per year, and not, say, $50?
- pests 7y ago
  Why should they pay $50? What are you charging for above cost of service?
  - yonran 7y ago
    When speculators hold onto domain names without using them, their right to exclude imposes a cost on the other member of society who wishes to use the property productively. So like progressive property taxes in general, a domain tax should be high enough not only to pay for the direct cost of services, but also to discourage idle speculators and encourage owners to use the domain productively.
- emiliobumachar 7y ago
  Collateral damage prevention. A poor-ish hobbyist on the fence about creating a website or not would be discouraged by a higher fee.
- ulucs 7y ago
  As a Glen Weyl-esque solution, make an owner of x domains pay x dollars for each domain they own. This way personal users get cheap domains, and we extract quite a lot of money from squatters.
vidarh 7y ago
Property rights over scarce resources are inherently exclusionary to the rest of society: By holding onto property you deny others access to it. The question society then need to come to terms with is to what extent it is prepared to grant that exclusionary control. It is not clear to me how you can have a just society without curtailing property rights. Every country on the planet add substantial restrictions to what you can do with "your" property already in order to reduce the negative impact that property rights has on the rest of society, so the question is really to what extent property rights are balanced to maximize benefit.

yonran 7y ago

Do you realize that the reason the squatter abandoned the domain (instead of keeping it forever) is the $8/year registry fee? My question is why should the squatter pay only $8 per year, and not, say, $50?

pests 7y ago
Why should they pay $50? What are you charging for above cost of service?
- yonran 7y ago
  When speculators hold onto domain names without using them, their right to exclude imposes a cost on the other member of society who wishes to use the property productively. So like progressive property taxes in general, a domain tax should be high enough not only to pay for the direct cost of services, but also to discourage idle speculators and encourage owners to use the domain productively.
emiliobumachar 7y ago
Collateral damage prevention. A poor-ish hobbyist on the fence about creating a website or not would be discouraged by a higher fee.
ulucs 7y ago
As a Glen Weyl-esque solution, make an owner of x domains pay x dollars for each domain they own. This way personal users get cheap domains, and we extract quite a lot of money from squatters.

vidarh 7y ago

Property rights over scarce resources are inherently exclusionary to the rest of society: By holding onto property you deny others access to it. The question society then need to come to terms with is to what extent it is prepared to grant that exclusionary control. It is not clear to me how you can have a just society without curtailing property rights. Every country on the planet add substantial restrictions to what you can do with "your" property already in order to reduce the negative impact that property rights has on the rest of society, so the question is really to what extent property rights are balanced to maximize benefit.