filter: 💡 🐦 🏟 👽 📺 🐘💰

👽

Interesting and well thought out response. I really respect you taking the time to put that together. I think that you are implying a few key additional constraints that don't follow from absolute private property rights: The homesteading principle, compensation beyond subsistence wages, implied existence of competitors. I think you ought to think through where those constraints came from, because to me the origin of those all seem to come from socially negotiated regulation of a market. If you think there are some socially negotiated limits to the free wielding of private property you might consider looking into market socialism, which I consider to be a little more coherent. From that vantage point the debate can switch to exactly which social regulation points are most important for a functioning society. However, there's also a glaring oversight in the theoretical world of your story (and in reality as well). There would only need to be so many people to satisfy the needs of the small number of people who own nearly everything, and because all non-owners have no fundamental right to the minimum property needed for their survival, they would have to take any minimum subsistence wage. I'll point out a few places where this assumption comes in. > enrich other people with resources they would then spend on whatever they deem appropriate. This statement really points out the two core issues. 1) That the wealthy would choose to "enrich" others beyond the minimum of bare subsistence. Under capitalism you don't need to pay more than the minimum to keep your workforce alive, and subsistence wages actually turns out to be what we observed in an economy without mandates in minimum working conditions imposed on employers. 2) "whatever they deem appropriate" means this tiny subset of people would effectively be deciding everything that is appropriate to create. > way which satisfies consumer demand. Again you have to keep in mind that the consumer demand is coming only from those with disposable wealth, ie just the N people with all the resources but not the remaining wage slave, and certainly not the person who is effectively starved because the owners decide they don't wish to provide the means of survival to them. I want to point out that I'm not saying that this is what would have to happen under capitalism, just that it is completely within the realm of possibility, has happened in the past in a localized manner, and is trending towards happening on a global scale right now. Finally, in response to your last point, it wouldn't be stupid at all to let a large fraction of the planet starve to satisfy the unlimited wants of a small number of owners of private property (provided they keep alive a slightly larger number of effective wage slaves whose numbers could diminish as automation allows more and more of the ownership class's wants to be met). The worst part about your argument though is that not only is this the case in theory, but in practice we see this in the economic data and lived experience of the US. (Not to be too US centric, but that's where it seems this debate is playing out right now)