4 ms·
> The bad part is the indentured servitude, not the land ownership. I guess you're not familiar with the Inclosure Acts? (To name but one of the grossly amoral
by __alexs 4y ago
> The bad part is the indentured servitude, not the land ownership.
I guess you're not familiar with the Inclosure Acts? (To name but one of the grossly amoral uses of land ownership in the past few centuries.)
- parineum 4y agoUsing land amorally isn't the same thing as owning land unless you think land ownership is amoral.
- __alexs 4y agoI'll take that as a yes then. OP was not claiming all land ownership was bad. Just that rich people have commonly used land ownership to harm others. There is a long and rich history of this.
- parineum 4y ago> creating legal property rights to land previously held in common. That's not a use of land ownership, that's an amoral redistribution (theft) of land. They took ownership from one party to another. The amorality was the transfer, not the ownership. Unless you think both parties are equally amoral for owning the land in the beginning and the end of the process. The argument you're making would be like saying it was amoral for plantation owners to own the land they held because they had slaves. The problem is the slaves (and all the evils that came with it), not the plantation.
- __alexs 4y ago> it was amoral for plantation owners to own the land they held because they had slaves. Yes it was. That's why many confederates had their land and property seized, and their slaves freed by the confiscation acts.
- PM_me_your_math 4y agoPoor people have harmed people too.