4 ms·
There's nothing particularly complicated here. We are dealing more with mythology and barbaric thought processes than with an actually complicated problem.
by wissler 14y ago
There's nothing particularly complicated here. We are dealing more with mythology and barbaric thought processes than with an actually complicated problem.
- davidw 14y agoThere you go again. The actual problem is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions It's not easy, and trying to create property artificially is hardly 'barbaric', even though it has its drawbacks (unfortunately, so do all the other solutions).
- wissler 14y agoIt is barbaric to think that if you think of something and create something based on it, then you can attack someone (whether directly or via the government is beside the point) and take their property if they think of and create it too. It's simply barbaric. There's no possible rational/moral justification here. Now, you may not see the barbarism clearly or at all. But that merely explains why you don't why calling it barbarism.
- davidw 14y agoThere is some rational justification explained in detail in the link I posted: creating artificial property is one way of confronting the underprovisioning of public goods. It's imperfect, but so are all the other ways, and so is simply letting them be underprovisioned. Calling people barbaric for disagreeing with you is not really ok in this community.