(July 20, 2013 at 12:59 pm)whateverist Wrote: Couldn't be arsed to read all the back and forth between genkaus and Rhythm. Any chance of getting a short statement of the issue?
Rhythm suggested issuing priority use rights as an alternative to ownership. Since then, we've been discussing the pros and cons of its application.
(July 20, 2013 at 12:59 pm)whateverist Wrote: To the OP, perhaps it isn't ownership per se that is objectionable. But some claims are more reasonable than others. I doubt anyone is going to challenge my claim to the cloths on my back, the truck I'm making payments on or the dog I feed every day. They'll probably respect my right to the place I live and the garden I keep. But my claim to all the land as far as the eye can see (even if I have documentation) could meet with some objection. If I claim to own the shore where my property borders the sea, more problems. If I claim the right to use the air space above my land to spew waste from my factory, problem. Ownership is something we've created and codified, but which is open to being refined. I'm for reasonable limits to ownership and am totally open to placing limits to how much wealth one individual can claim for himself. It would have to be reasonably and fairly done, but I suspect we'll need to go there eventually.
My view is that you can own anything that you've bought, produced or been given. And while this raises the unresolved issue of original ownership (by what right do you claim a right to this unclaimed land), it works just fine in current political systems where all unclaimed resources would be considered government property. As for limits, I'd say that an individual can claim as much as he can produce or buy with what he has produced. The only reasonable restriction I see is that he should not claim anything by force or theft.
