Quote:
|
I'd simply limit absentee ownership in some way, depending on the area
|
Quote:
|
And I don't support centralised state ownership nor in most circumstances any other kind of enforced collective ownership and wish to see great independence for the individual.
|
Can you see the contradiction?
Quote:
|
but if you have a more profound idea of freedom, humanity and society you certainly would not automatically jump to such conclusions.
|
I think "profound" is the wrong word to use.
No-one owns the planet, not even the government. There is no way around it. There is no perfect solution. The only way to deal with this is to be able to own your creation . ie your house
Is your more "profound" idea to allow me to walk into your home without your consent?
Quote:
|
The way I see it is that if you simply define freedom in terms of a lockean idea of property rights then you are being simplistic and certainly do not have all the answers for human political and social organisation
|
.
Why do you feel the need to complicate the matter?(of course freedom isnt just property rights - freedom is the ability to do anything you want to do aslong as you dont hurt others) I own my life. I own my creation/s. Do I not?
Again, there is no perfect system, atleast not atm, but free markets and owning your own creation/s is the best we have/had/could have.
I dont think anyone or any system professes to have all the answers. Do you? :P
Instead of just criticizing others, perhaps you could state how your superior , more radical, system would work? Seems to me you just want to conveniently brush under the carpet the idea of ownership to make your system/ideas pertain to freedom. I could be wrong but thats how it seems.