Bizarre? I wish I could agree.
I just can't see a way of abolishing private property without a state-like entity CONTROLLING it.
With one exception: the voluntary giving up of private property in a post-scarcity world.
Post by twetch#21877
Yeah, well private property doesn't really exist. It's just a network of contracts about who agrees who has the right to use what, and like anything else, the state messes it up by making the contracts non voluntary. Some examples make this very obvious:
What the chain says
- Block
- 635 368
- Time
- 2020-05-18T00:20:47Z
- Signer
- 16SgJCRH7fB5ny6wCHabmiGaa6wcbve6WS
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#21877
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
16SgJCRH7fB5ny6wCHabmiGaa6wcbve6WS VerifiedReplies (11)
How much IP should there be? Which natural resources need to be privatized? How do you really decide without authority?
If there was a blockchain that tracked who is supposed to own what, it should still be voluntary whether or not you believe in what that blockchain says just as it is voluntary whether or not you believe bitcoin is money or agree to accept it as currency.
At the end of the day, if you and I are in a room, and you have a slice of choclate cake, what it means that you own it is that you and I have a contract. Becuase one day it might be me who has a slice of choclate cake when were alone.
So it really makes more sense to say that contracts should be voluntary, after that the market should sort out networks contracts of who gets to use what exist. The market comes to a set of agreements that may or not match your ideas of how property works.
This thread is longer than one page shows. Open a reply to see what follows it.