[notimetorelax]

I recently started reading history and it speaks a lot about land ownership and how peasants would get indebted to barons for working on it. On the surface that made a lot of sense, and yet this was not the type of society we wanted.

Nowadays billionaires remind me of those barons, some even buy out land (see Bill Gates and his buying spree [1]). So people mentioning someone’s net worth states their class and this is important for the context. As for Musk being entitled to fire anyone, sure he can do that, although some of it may not be legal, plus we as society may decide that this is not the norm we want to accept. Same as the peasants didn’t earlier.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/05/bill-g...

[parineum]

> Nowadays billionaires remind me of those barons, some even buy out land

I'm pretty sure you missed the important point of that history you've been reading. The bad part is the indentured servitude, not the land ownership.

> On the surface that made a lot of sense

To whom?

> So people mentioning someone’s net worth states their class and this is important for the context. As for Musk being entitled to fire anyone, sure he can do that, although some of it may not be legal, plus we as society may decide that this is not the norm we want to accept. Same as the peasants didn’t earlier.

There are a plethora of companies that behave in this exact way that millions of people continue to patronize in a much more substantial manner than they do Twitter (Food, vehicles, electronics, etc.).

Musk's behavior is not new, unique or shocking. These people are overplaying their outrage over his behavior because they don't like the man and Twitter is their safe space. It has absolutely nothing to do with his actual business practices.

[__alexs]

> The bad part is the indentured servitude, not the land ownership.

I guess you're not familiar with the Inclosure Acts? (To name but one of the grossly amoral uses of land ownership in the past few centuries.)

[parineum]

Using land amorally isn't the same thing as owning land unless you think land ownership is amoral.

[__alexs]

I'll take that as a yes then.

OP was not claiming all land ownership was bad. Just that rich people have commonly used land ownership to harm others. There is a long and rich history of this.

[parineum]

> creating legal property rights to land previously held in common.

That's not a use of land ownership, that's an amoral redistribution (theft) of land.

They took ownership from one party to another. The amorality was the transfer, not the ownership. Unless you think both parties are equally amoral for owning the land in the beginning and the end of the process.

The argument you're making would be like saying it was amoral for plantation owners to own the land they held because they had slaves. The problem is the slaves (and all the evils that came with it), not the plantation.

[__alexs]

> it was amoral for plantation owners to own the land they held because they had slaves.

Yes it was. That's why many confederates had their land and property seized, and their slaves freed by the confiscation acts.

[PM_me_your_math]

Poor people have harmed people too.