Quote:
Originally Posted by MVW
So you arnt infact against property rights just that you want it to be distributed more fairly.
|
In fact I believe they are a good bulwark against the state to increase freedom. However they do this better when they are well dispersed, firstly because this allows many more individuals more freedom and autonomy and secondly because it increases the bulwark, its flexibility and its support among the populace.
Quote:
How would you even go about doing such a thing? Tell rich people how they can spend their money (de facto , owning all income) ? Have the government , by default, own all the land?
Lets get past the moral implications and even the anti-freedom aspects here and mention how inefficient government is , not to mention the massive lobbying for land that would no doubt occur. Theres also the massive administration costs.
|
I don't suggest the gov't owns the land. Personally I have no iron law suggestions, I advocate local regions decide in a decentralised and libertarian fashion. There are many different ideas on this : Georgism, mutualism, distributism and many others. It might be something as simple as juries and courts enforcing the rights of and tenants and workers and squatters to property that someone claims as an absentee owners which pretty much is mutualism.
Quote:
|
You are being massively vague I have to say. Lots of "shoulds" but now many "hows".
|
Two reasons for that. One is I was mainly critiquing you as this is your thread. Two there are many alternative ways to do this in a libertarian and decentralist fashion and I think it is best for a local community or region to decide itself.