| "Because it's his" You pulled out a Nazi analogy on me last time, so this time I'll pull out a (more apt) slaveholder analogy. Why should a slaveholder get the labor of a slave in perpetuity? By your logic, it's simple: because it's his. Most of the world has moved beyond that flavor of opportunistic logic and we'll eventually get past the current flavor of the century. "Does an orchard owner only 'own' the apples from his trees if he has actively watered them?" 1) If the orchard doesn't get sufficient natural irrigation, then no the owner doesn't, simply by virtue of the trees not producing any fruit. 2) If the orchard does get sufficient irrigation (especially as a result of another's labor), then the orchard "owner" doesn't have much claim to the fruit. Yes, the owner may pull out a deed chain that goes back to a grant from the US government, or a Queen/King of the British Empire and attempt to argue that gives him absolute ownership over the fruit. The owner might even convince most with that historical argument. Depending on the exact circumstances in question, I might argue the claim is laughable. "In the 'plan' you are defending, she would have to give the ownership of that salon to her employees after, I don't know, 10 years?" I'm not defending a plan, I merely asked a question. I don't know what the specifics could, or should, be. It's a slightly different model to think about that allows for a more inclusive economy. Anyway, in your example, Mary would still retain ownership, assuming she contributed real labor to the enterprise. Mary would just also be sharing ownership with all of the other people who also made that enterprise possible, instead of purely exploiting the other contributors for her own personal profit. "I'm not even sure why I'm responding, really." Slightly curious? It's OK to explore taboos. Sometimes you find out everyone else was full of shit. |