Subject:
|
Is land a good? (was: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1 )
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:09:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5209 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> I'd argue that it is more important that a society ensures its citizen has
> the right to shelter & sustenance... before any other right. In your
> dreamland, those within it have all sorts of hypothetical rights which are
> useless without property to give them access to it.
I think I get it (or at least part of it). You are envisioning the scenario in
which (just as an example) a person has no wealth at all, and those with wealth
prevent him from obtaining any. Or even worse, fail to yield a place for him
to stand.
I will agree that without the right to a place in which to exist, you don't
really have the right to exist.
So what's the solution? I don't think that a liberal government rooted in the
rich tradition of banditry is good. And more and more I'm questioning the
notion of land as a good, with the same legal status as most goods.
Does anyone out there know if there is a branch of libertarian thought that
handles this issue?
If thievery is the only answer, then I guess I'd still side with the
libertarians since while this is a clear flaw in their ideal, it wouldn't
really be practiced, while liberal thievery has only gotten worse over time
and is very real and practical.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) I'll answer this once search is working again. (...) I'd argue that it is more important that a society ensures its citizen has the right to shelter & sustenance... before any other right. In your dreamland, those within it have all sorts of (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
78 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
