🌧️  Rainy day in the UK so it's time for a random post. 🌧️ 

Property rights is an interesting topic because depending on who you ask, they have a different view about it. But it in some circumstances when asked a specific question, most would agree on a single answer.

For example:
Question - If one person in the world owned nearly everything in the world and everyone else owned nothing, does property rights make sense here?

Answer - Most would answer that it is unfair that the one person owned nearly all of the worlds economic resources and the others are left no ownership of any assets. Most would also answer that everyone else is being exploited largely for the benefit of the one individual who had ownership of everything in the world. Therefore, most would answer that there should be an equitable distribution of economic resources to those who have nothing. For simplicity lets say we are just talking about land and everything on that piece of land.


However, you have to ask many more questions before answering the above question if you want to answer it correctly.

For example:
1) Did that one person acquire ownership of everything by way of violence, theft and or fraud? 
Or... 
2) Was the ownership of assets acquired by way of trading value for value co-operatively? 

If the former, then clearly there is no property rights in existence anyway. If the latter, you can argue that the individual provided something of value to have such a level of ownership of the worlds economic resources. Therefore, property rights does make sense and the normie answer above is incorrect. This is because the acquisition of resources was conducted in an ethical and moral manner which means that the resulting distribution in resources is fair.

Now someone will argue that anyone who has amassed such a high level of ownership of the worlds economic resources has likely in some way shape or form directly or indirectly benefited from violence, theft and/or fraud. Therefore, the person who owns absolutely nothing will argue that they should be granted an equitable distribution of economic resources because that one person made partial economic gains through unethical and immoral means.

The person who owns nothing is not necessarily arguing against property rights, but he/she is actually arguing for justice or a system of justice.

Justice is another large topic to discuss and but it is relevant to the matter. 

For simplicity however, I think you have to draw a line in the sand decide whether you want to move ahead or stay behind. Meaning...  
1) Do you want to move forward in a way which is respectful of someone else's property and your own property? 
Or... 
2) Do you want go backwards and entertain violence, theft and or fraud?


Are there any good books about this topic that anyone can recommend❓ #asknostr #books