My argument is practicality as well as theory. First - who had "the commons" before it was closed? From what I understand there has always been someone who ha

My argument is practicality as well as theory. First - who had "the commons" before it was closed? From what I understand there has always been someone who had more control over property than another. Who will redistribute in a practical way? Who watches that person to make sure they are both efficient and fair? Also - look at a list of the richest people in America. You'll notice that most came from middle or low class backgrounds. It seems like redistribution occurs fairly rapidly (within one or two generations) compared with other times. Also - please explain who in America has massively unequal bargaining powers? In another comment you said you needed to use "counter propoganda". The internet and forums are largely dominated by your way of thinking. Maybe it's because people who hold your view would rather type about issues than do solid work. And I've also been thinking about this practically. It is right that claims on property, the foundation of many forms of capitalist forms of economies, are not inherent. However couldn't powerful property taxes be useful as this? If we defined property well and taxed ownership then redistribution would be built in and taxes would fall on the richest (those who use the most resources)? I'm just playing with that idea. Also - there is one prominent example of someone living on $7,000 a year comfortably (early retirement extreme) which is far below the minimum wage. This person lives a lifestyle far better than almost anyone two generations ago and most a generation ago.