> 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 propert

> 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.