Subject:
|
Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:46:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1030 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> Darn, wish I'd seen this note before posting a second ago.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
>
> > Then again, in Libertopia, one expects that when one *buys* land, one buys
> > it *from* someone. Hence, if you were dumb enough to sell the space you
> > physically occupy to someone else, leaving you with nothing, tough beans to
> > you. At least, such would be a capitalist view, I would think.
>
> That's how I see it too. But that is wicked, not good and just.
>
> > > It is my assertion that if people have a right to exist,
> > > they must have a right to exist _somewhere_.
>
> > An excellent communistic ideal, but realistically flawed, sadly.
>
> Convince me.
I think we need to hold people to some standards. Let's assume that the
right to exist does require us to provide minimal support to all. Now,
take someone who takes their monthly check and spends it all on booze.
Should we give them a bigger check so that they can also pay their rent
and buy food?
Of course one way out of this dilema is to decide that when someone is
incompetent to manage their own life, that they may be forcibly placed
in some kind of care facility. Thus, instead of giving them a check, we
directly provide their housing and food (and other necessities). In
exchange, they lose some freedom.
> Well, some enumeration of potentially transient property rights would be a
> great idea. Technically a lease on a property is considered an ownership
> interest and the leasee has property rights with regard to the leased property.
> It could be similar in a social/stewardship model of land use. I don't have a
> problem with property rights per se, just with the ownership of property. I
> think the toughest part of my idealized vision is figuring out how to
> periodically redistribute stewardship without causing undue hardship on
> everyone. But that's essentially just a technical hurdle.
I feel that if the land is distributed fairly to start with, and the
econimic system is fair, that one shouldn't need to re-distribute land.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
