Part 2
Part 3
In his lead-up to the hypothetical island scenario in Part 3, he used the example of someone who has fenced off a river on their property and you are on the other side of the fence dying of thirst.
I think this says more about him than about property rights. Or a right to live, or a right to water.
I pointed out that you can walk past the end of most fences. But, even if you can't, if I owned that property I would let you drink and fill your canteen. If you crossed the fence to do so without asking (maybe I'm not there but I have a video camera and I'm watching you) I'm not going to be angry. Please, drink! I'm not going to have an issue unless you damage the value of my property in some way, and crossing my property and drinking from the river so you don't die doesn't do so.
This makes me think communists are really horrible people and they imagine everyone else is as self-centered as they are.
-
Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
The commie is engaged in base stealing. The society he takes as a given - one in which there are no secure property rights even in essentials like water, and no free trade - is already the society he or she advocates for.
ReplyDeleteIn a free-er society, one wouldn't acquire the rights to land with no secure access to water, and the people with water rights would freely trade them for things they consider more valuable, in a win-win scenario.
In the commie scenario, it's might makes right.
Free trade gives you clean, inexpensive tap water in trade for the value you create to sell to others. Communism gives you the Holomolodor - murdering millions by starvation because a tyrant like Stalin seizes all the food of those he disfavors.
Jim Henshaw