undefined | Better HN

0 pointsEisenstein2y ago0 comments

Do you believe that wealth is an innate right no matter the societal cost -- that people should be able to own such things or amounts of things that it is to the detriment of those around them?

0 comments

lazide2y ago

Wouldn't any detriment be related to the land/property itself, and hence that should be addressed?

For instance, if the owner is doing something obnoxious on a parcel in town, the town can put a lien on it, or condemn it. Then the problem is fixed and that parcel is taken away.

If someone is monopolizing hotels (say) in an area, the local county or state can pass a tax on hotels that make it less desirable to do that. Or start taking on anti monopoly action in the hotel industry in the area.

If that same person owns a parcel in another state, how do those two things relate? Or say one hotel in another state?

Unless someone also wants to go after that other parcel or property, anyway, as a prize.

EisensteinOP2y ago

I don't follow you. Wealth is ownership of resources. You are saying 'if the resources are a problem, take them away' which is saying 'remove the wealth'.

lazide2y ago

I'm saying if a specific resource is a problem due to how it is being used (per a general rule or principle that would be applied generally), then take it away after due process based on that rule or principle. Who owns it shouldn't matter, frankly. If it does, that is corruption - regardless if that person is rich or poor.

Not just because some specific person happens to own it that we don't like for whatever reason right now.

Also known as Article 1, Section 9, or a 'Bill of attainder'.

Aka penalize actual bad behavior equally, not people just because we think they have too much wealth.

That way, if people don't actually create problems, they can have wealth. If they do create problems, wealthy or not, they won't have tools to cause problems.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

lazide2y ago

Wouldn't any detriment be related to the land/property itself, and hence that should be addressed?

For instance, if the owner is doing something obnoxious on a parcel in town, the town can put a lien on it, or condemn it. Then the problem is fixed and that parcel is taken away.

If that same person owns a parcel in another state, how do those two things relate? Or say one hotel in another state?

Unless someone also wants to go after that other parcel or property, anyway, as a prize.

EisensteinOP2y ago

I don't follow you. Wealth is ownership of resources. You are saying 'if the resources are a problem, take them away' which is saying 'remove the wealth'.

lazide2y ago

Not just because some specific person happens to own it that we don't like for whatever reason right now.

Also known as Article 1, Section 9, or a 'Bill of attainder'.

Aka penalize actual bad behavior equally, not people just because we think they have too much wealth.

That way, if people don't actually create problems, they can have wealth. If they do create problems, wealthy or not, they won't have tools to cause problems.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse