And by replacing ownership with either de facto or de jure rental of any and all private property.
I have a big enough philosophical objection to the concept where we don't actually own property and may only rent it from the government due to property taxes. Now we "own" phones we can't control, "own" cars that have features dis/en-abled over the air if you pay for them.
Product managers are brimming with innovative features and benefits enabled by stripping ownership away from the public/consumers. It reminds me of the Black Mirror episode where you pay for your toothpaste $0.05 at a time from a dispenser in your home when you want some on your toothbrush.
I can easily see the argument for owning personal property like a phone, but how can someone have a true ownership claim over land?
For personal property there is a production chain with labor that went into the item, but for land it's just out there and at some point someone decided they should be able to restrict what other people do in some area. If you see that it's not legitimate for a government to do, then by the same logic it's not legitimate for an individual - a government is just a collection of individuals acting together
> If you see that it's not legitimate for a government to do, then by the same logic it's not legitimate for an individual
I see the rights of government as secondary by default with exceptions meted out strictly as necessary. There exists a very limited number of jurisdictions where property taxes don't exist and land ownership is therefore real, so there's no philosophical/legal impediment to foregoing property taxes.
My argument is that even without property taxes the land ownership isn't real - someone can have a piece of paper and a government to back them up and say they "own" the land, but ultimately it's not the same as personal property and doesn't make sense to treat the same way. As far as I've seen it's impossible to establish a chain of custody for land ownership that doesn't involve theft and invalidate the current ownership claim
Further, the government is the only thing that grants the land ownership claim, if there is no government than anyone can come along and kick you off your land, revealing that you didn't really own it to start with - you're just living there right now
> it's impossible to establish a chain of custody for land ownership that doesn't involve theft
This is a big issue in some places, e.g. I've heard in South Africa, because of legal issues arising out of confiscation when apartheid ended. Not so much in the US. There are some disputes going back to deeds with native Americans but they're very rare.
> the government is the only thing that grants the land ownership claim, if there is no government than anyone can come along and kick you off your land
The government's authority is the only reason a theory of any private property can exist in the real world anyway. Unless we're talking about super abstract theories of private enforcement in anarchist philosophy or something. In the world we live in, no government means people take your stuff, whether it's land or not.
Yeah I'm talking about personal vs private property, generally defined by movability, so like a house itself is private but the land isn't
> Not so much in the US. There are some disputes going back to deeds with native Americans but they're very rare
I think you're only talking about disputes recognized in the courts, not the actual disputes over the whole land claim which have consistently been there historically
> In the world we live in, no government means people take your stuff, whether it's land or not
Seems like we agree on this point - land ownership comes from the govt who ultimately "owns" all the land (but still through theft or some random claim)
I think a good analogy is other planets - can I say I own Mars and anyone who goes there has to rent the land from me? Without a government that's not going to happen, and with a government it only happens through force which invalidates the whole "exchange"
>And by replacing ownership with either de facto or de jure rental of any and all private property.
My theory is that as profits decline due to the tendency of markets to reach equilibrium with respect to products/services supplied that capital owners will begin to reintroduce pre-capitalist norms and practices such as landlordism as these can sustain revenues to their liking as you renter won't have any ownership rights to contest their actions. It means they can raise rental rates anytime in the majority of cases and then just evict you from or repossess what was rented. Kind of like feudalism but without the fancy hats and titles.
I have a big enough philosophical objection to the concept where we don't actually own property and may only rent it from the government due to property taxes. Now we "own" phones we can't control, "own" cars that have features dis/en-abled over the air if you pay for them.
Product managers are brimming with innovative features and benefits enabled by stripping ownership away from the public/consumers. It reminds me of the Black Mirror episode where you pay for your toothpaste $0.05 at a time from a dispenser in your home when you want some on your toothbrush.