9873259735609

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by 9873259735609 4y ago

   I'm not advocating for property rights over natural resources. I'm advocating for property rights over artificial objects created by labour applied to natural resources.
2. 2.▲
   by 9873259735609 4y ago

   I think it's self-evident that a person should not be deprived of what they create without their consent. I'm not sure what you mean by "mutual agreement", but I assume you don't mean that literally, as there would
3. 3.▲
   by 9873259735609 4y ago

   > I want to build a table, so I chomp a tree. You want to build a chair, and you chomp another tree. I want to build another table, so I must walk a longer distance to find a tree. If everyone cut trees, it will get harder to find one. N
4. 4.▲
   by 9873259735609 4y ago

   There are natural resources that nobody created. Using them to create something is not coercion and results in property that can be traded for other property or services. Property can be coercion (e.g. untouched land claimed by or with the
5. 5.▲
   by 9873259735609 4y ago

   Not in most of the world, but I could definitely see someone get arrested (or worse) for that in the US.
6. 6.▲
   by 9873259735609 4y ago

   There are plenty of people who cannot get care at government hospitals in countries with "universal healthcare", because of waiting lists, because the government doesn't consider the treatment they need to be worthwhile, etc.
7. 7.▲
   by 9873259735609 4y ago

   I doubt either works well, but I think corporations like Amazon are likely to be more susceptible to public and investor pressure because their relationship with the public and their investors is voluntary and can be unilaterally ended by t