3 ms·

"If I live alone in a big house with 5 rooms, I could host at least 10-15 people there. They would surely rather live in that nice house, and not on the street.

"If I live alone in a big house with 5 rooms, I could host at least 10-15 people there. They would surely rather live in that nice house, and not on the street." Would it still be a nice house if 10-15 people with no kinship were crammed into it? We can see from the way that people chose to spend and live that most people regard privacy as important to their idea of home. "What causes that scarcity that I live alone in a big house, while homeless people roam the streets? Property rights." No, scarcity is inherent, as explained earlier. With your home example, the land itself is scarce. Somebody has invested to build and maintain the building. The house would quickly be ruined and stripped if not for care and property protections. "Rights protection, in balance, is what allows society to rise above a pile of people consuming everything to scarcity and filling everything to capacity, with no ability to take a long-term view other mere existence." At the start of the thread, you were using the language of real property to argue for IP. But here, you reveal that you are in fact opposed to real property.

slver 6y ago
> Would it still be a nice house if 10-15 people with no kinship were crammed into it? You're currently arguing in favor of artificial scarcity through property rights. Are you sure that's your thesis. /s > No, scarcity is inherent, as explained earlier. There's nothing "inherent" in having the right to keep those 10-15 people away from your nice house. I think you're so used to having the right of property, you can't even realize none of this is inherent. Rights, laws and law enforcement gave you that. Without this artificial scarcity, there would be zero homeless people. And there would also be zero people owning houses. But I'm sure nice houses will just keep being built anyway. /s > At the start of the thread, you were using the language of real property to argue for IP. But here, you reveal that you are in fact opposed to real property. I'm not opposed to real property at all. I'm just showing you what a world without property rights looks like. You seem to not like it. QED.

slver 6y ago

> Would it still be a nice house if 10-15 people with no kinship were crammed into it? You're currently arguing in favor of artificial scarcity through property rights. Are you sure that's your thesis. /s > No, scarcity is inherent, as explained earlier. There's nothing "inherent" in having the right to keep those 10-15 people away from your nice house. I think you're so used to having the right of property, you can't even realize none of this is inherent. Rights, laws and law enforcement gave you that. Without this artificial scarcity, there would be zero homeless people. And there would also be zero people owning houses. But I'm sure nice houses will just keep being built anyway. /s > At the start of the thread, you were using the language of real property to argue for IP. But here, you reveal that you are in fact opposed to real property. I'm not opposed to real property at all. I'm just showing you what a world without property rights looks like. You seem to not like it. QED.