Laws that limit the use of ones own property, removes true ownership all together.
What constitutes ownership? What constitutes property?
Agree
Side Score: 5
|
 |
Disagree
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Having to get permission from government really removes the incentive from owning land. The only reason for the non decrease in home ownership is people are trying to hide assets into their real estate because not only of increasing taxes raising everywhere else, but the inflated home prices caused by inflation from cheap credit. The artificial homes prices trick people into thinking homes are worth more than reality, which makes county governments happy because then they extract more as well. Basically, INFLATION always means more taxation and revenue for government in all forms. Side: Agree
1
point
It's not really yours if you can't do as you like to the fullest. On a deserted island, anything you find, you can own. In a government run country, they own you and everything it the country, since they already claimed the rights to everything. The best you can hope for is a semi-permanent lease. Side: Agree
1
point
Governments are a social institution. If there were many people on the island, you would not be able to morally do absolutely whatever you want with your property but it would still be yours. If the people of the island got together and laid down some ground rules for property use and interaction, it would still be your property. Regimes run countries, Governments stipulate limits wherein the country runs itself. Side: Disagree
1
point
I could do as I pleased, with only my conscious as the price to pay. If the people of the island got together and laid down some ground rules for property use and interaction, it would still be your property. I agree with you, but if the people think they have the right to take my property for not following their rules, and it's agreed upon, then I do not own that property in the first place, if anyone can take it. Regimes run countries, Governments stipulate limits wherein the country runs itself.8* Sounds like the same thing to me. Side: Agree
|
1
point
Having legal restrictions on the use of your property does not mean that it is no longer your property. The existence of restriction does not require permission for use. The government restricts the use of your money, car, gun, and body, but these are all still your property. Side: Disagree
1
point
I'm bringing the other comments to this debate If I destroy my money, someone else's money is affected? Yes, because you are affecting the quantity of money which affects it's value. That doesn't seem like an argument in favor of not actually owning your money You own the value you store in your money The government owns the value, so they own the money When the government prints or burns money, they are stealing your value, it's not theirs. This is why a policy of minimal inflation is the only moral policy for those who we hire to manage the money supply. Side: Disagree
1
point
1
point
|
