Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (66174)	12/12/1999 1:04:00 PM
From: MSB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

There is nothing I disagree with in your post, Mike. Of course you are right that there have been several models of economic ownership during the history of man. I am just pointing out that there is no inherent natural law that says that all the planet's resources should necessarily be privately owned, which is contrary to the argument often made here that of course people who are powerful or clever or lucky or scheming or dishonest enough to control large amounts of property or money have the right to destroy the environment or make others miserable. From the paragraph: I am just pointing out that there is no inherent natural law that says that all the planet's resources should necessarily be privately owned, Nor are the lands all privately owned. What other countries do with regard to land ownership is out of my knowledge of understanding. But it seems to me that what has been primarily discussed has been with the understanding of U.S. land ownership (unless I missed something along the way). Not all U.S. lands are privately owned. Huge chunks of land are publicly owned. I'm curious, how much undeveloped property do you own? I'm thinking this might give me a better sense of why you're concerned about personal property rights versus the common good. which is contrary to the argument often made here that of course people who are powerful or clever or lucky or scheming or dishonest enough to control large amounts of property or money have the right to destroy the environment or make others miserable. The above would make a good "end of term paper", but I don't have the desire or the time. I do think that much of what might be suggested as powerful, clever, lucky, etc., etc., was given to those individuals by other individuals. Look at the huge chunks of farmland owned by corporations. Those corporations couldn't have amassed that land had individuals not sold it to them. So really, who is at fault, the corporations whose intended purpose is to profit, or the individuals who, for whatever reason, sold the property essentially giving them the power which they have?