A philosophical analysis.
My theory:
We have too much property and too little common land.
We strive too much after ownership and too little after shared social life and survival, experiences, …
Here are a few facts that support my theory:
- 62 super rich people practically own half the world.
(62 Superreiche besitzen so viel wie die halbe Welt) - Why is it a matter of course that humans (“natural persons”) can acquire (buy) soil and property to their hearts’ content?
- Why is everyone allowed to own a car that causes considerable damage to the common good? Or a yacht? Why can huge social systems with an economic goal be completely owned by few people or other social systems?
Something is rotten with property. To be sure, I understand to some extent – and even wish for myself – that people, who in our legal system are called “natural persons”, can own property to a reasonable extent.
But why do “legal persons” like capital companies (GmbH, AG, Company Limited … – in French, they are called “society anonyme“) have the same rights?
If a “natural person” dies, the problem of inheritance is added, which strengthens the polarisation of “poor and rich”.
“Legal Persons” will not die naturally. But they can become bankrupt. And what then? Even with our modern bankruptcy laws, the protection of those who are owed something has priority over saving the enterprise.
In addition, money will usually increase by itself. That makes property more and more powerful and power richer and richer.
Now let us look at the components of ownership.
Initially you own objects. As I see it, that is ok as long as we are not talking objects that should belong to the community and as long as the situation does not do any damage to the common good.
It gets harder when we are talking the ownership of rights. Is it really fair that someone who, with his team and in a fortunate communication system, developed a patent and therefore has a huge income over many decades, can buy any property he feels he wants in Munich City every year? That the authors of bestselling novels or soccer stars will be billionaires after a few years?
To be sure, I understand that the effort of an artist should be suitably paid for. But why is the right to mental property given in the same way to “legal persons” as to “natural persons”? Why does the music of Bob Marley or of the Beatles not belong to all the people of this world, rather than to a few concerns? The same is true for the dramas of Bert Brecht?
And now we also have ownership of data? Isn’t that totally grotesque? As I see it, we do not need data security but the obligation to be transparent! And that we should not try to protect ourselves against institutions that manipulate us. Instead, we should abolish them.
RMD
(Translated by EG)
Loading ...