3 ms·
> On one hand, people should have the ability to do what they want with properties they own. I agree with this in principle. On the other hand - from a philoso
by tmnvix 3y ago
> On one hand, people should have the ability to do what they want with properties they own.
I agree with this in principle. On the other hand - from a philosophical point of view - I can't justify private ownership of natural resources. This is 'wealth' provided by nature without any input from individuals (think land, minerals, water, the radio spectrum, etc).
I think that the concept of exclusive rights is important for how our society functions, but this can be accomplished without ownership. Exclusive rights could be negotiated by an individual or group with society in general (think of how access to the radio spectrum often works, or even land value taxes). Part of that negotiation could include the 'natural owners' (wider society) placing conditions on agreeing to grant exclusive rights.
- chii 3y ago> Part of that negotiation could include the 'natural owners' (wider society) placing conditions on agreeing to grant exclusive rights. this is what is already in place in the west - we just call it ownership for short. True ownership can only be achieved with military power. And if everybody did this, we'd be in an anarchy - think the warlords of subsaharan africa where there's lots of tribal conflicts.