And BTW: even with those incredibly strong intuitions about existence, I'm still not an anti-propertarian like many left-leaning anarchists. It's a fact that no human needs more than one house to live in. Make that the agreement for any rational sustainable spiritual civilization.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Who are you to dictate what others shoukd be allowed, based in your percepion if need? That is the height of arrogance.
The question is not what someone has, but how it was acquired. is it through the productive means of voluntary exchanges, ir the coercive means of political plunder? Politicians and megacorp CEOs fall under the latter, but people who invest in rental property or own a vacation cabin on a lake or maintain a residence in multiple cities due to work needs are hardly depriving anyone of anything.
You condemn "ownership of the earth," but when someone transforms land outnof its state of nature to fulfill a need or want, why has a superior claim to the result of that action if not the acting human? Tending a field, planting and orchard, building a home, or otherwuse mixing labor with the soil to use unowned land for productive means creates a right of use. Who has the right to violate that claim? Why shoudl it not be transferrable if someone else perceives the past human action to have added value, and thus allow an economic exchange?