You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: An Original Parable about Voluntaryism
So your opposition boils down to two points:
- Ben can't own the river
- "People" would punish Ben economically because they're pissed at him
In an effort to distill my thoughts, let me give you my quick rebuttal:
- Why can't Ben own the river? Who decides this? If he doesn't own the river, who does? Your decision that land can be owned but a river can't is arbitrary.
- "People" isn't an agent. "People" is a collection of uncoordinated individuals. If 100 people don't want to buy Ben's logs, then one person will come along and buy them at a discount - but it's not a foregone conclusion that he'll be driven out of business simply because people are annoyed with him.
You could own a river if you built a river. You don't have any claim of ownership over something simply because you claim it's yours. That's what governments do. People in this imaginary land don't acknowledge governments. You can only claim ownership over something that you put your labor into, bought with your own money, someone (who had legitimate ownership of it first) gave it to you, or you inherited it. You can't just walk up to a river or a piece of land and say you own it.
So you're opposed to homesteading rights?