Could a free market be done and done as good or better without intellectual and unlimited property?
I'll explain what I mean by unlimited property in a bit.
By doing away with unlimited property I mean placing limits on how much say real estate you could own.
Gloominary wrote:Would the market be more free, creative, prosperous and less monopolistic if we did away with intellectual property?
WendyDarling wrote:By doing away with unlimited property I mean placing limits on how much say real estate you could own.
Taking away the right to own property is part of the UN's Agenda 21. It's a slippery slope when you decide how much someone must reside somewhere cuz the next step is saying that the property size is too big for these 4 people or this mere person, then still too big even after it is miniaturized until property rights no longer belong to any individuals. And I don't think owning a condo in a skyrise is really owning property. I don't know what to call that actually other than being sold a scam. I mean you own space up in the air that's in the shape of an apartment. You don't own the land underneath it or the structure resting upon the land, which's nuts. You own jack.
Mr Reasonable wrote:Is it good capitalism for a company to create software that serves no purpose other than to force you to buy a proprietary charging cable that they sell at a 10000% markup?
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Free markets exist on the borders of societies, and on Frontiers.
Over time, Socialism eventually corrupts and invades all societies, and "Capitalism" is peeled-back, as it is in the 21st Century now.
It's a degression and regression.
When Europeans discovered the Americas, colonized, conquered, and settled, during that time, they held "free markets", without many or any restrictions.
The Slave Trade is one result of "pure capitalism and free market". So if you are against slavery, then you are technically against free markets and "pure capitalism".
Private Property came later.
Privatization occurs when land deeds are backed by military force. If you can't back your claims to land with military force, then another militia or army has "the right" to fight and take them. This was the American-Indian wars, between the US government and Indian Tribes.
Fixed Cross wrote:Gloominary wrote:Would the market be more free, creative, prosperous and less monopolistic if we did away with intellectual property?
There wouldn't be a market, I reckon?
People wouldn't be able to sell their creations.
Gloominary wrote:Are you saying you can have free markets without private property and vice versa?
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Gloominary wrote:Are you saying you can have free markets without private property and vice versa?
The freer the market, the more amount of private property
You have to first 'own' the ideas you have, the words you speak, before you can "trade", buy, and sell them.
More freedom = More privatization
Government is a third-party 'Regulator' between freedom and privatization, a valve.
Why? Because military force, physical force, violence, is always underneath it all. If you want to "own" your own ideas, thoughts, your own body, blood, soul, you have to fight for it. You have to kill others who would take it from you. And they will take it from you, if you let them, if you're passive and weak.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users