Dear Liberals, Is it even possible to make the world better without Property Rights ?

Question

Even this non-believer says that is key

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw-da3CFh5g

Hernando de Soto Polar (or Hernando de Soto; born 1941) is a Peruvian economist known for his work on the informal economy and on the importance of business and property rights. He is the president of the Institute for Liberty and Democracy (ILD), located in Lima, Peru.[1]

Answer 1

Liberals do not want to dissolve private property rights, liberals only want to put in controls to ensure than singular entities can control entire industries. Can you not see a problem if a private company can buy all the water rights in an area, and then start charging everyone for access to the water? Then slowly over time they inflate the cost of water, until the poor can no longer afford to drink at all.

Answer 2

define "non-believer"

since this is posted in the "Religion & Spirituality" section I assume "non-believer" means he's an atheist



"Is it even possible to make the world better without Property Rights"

there's obviously a lot more to making the world better than just property rights



the Catholic Church is one of the largest property holders in the world

but just because they have property rights doesn't necessarily make the world a better place

http://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3?op=1



if you and Mr. de Soto are referring only to individual property rights and not large institutions or monarchies or dictators then what about 25 families owning 1% of all the land in the US ?

http://www.businessinsider.com/biggest-landowners-america?op=1



is that a good thing or a bad thing ?



would the US economy be better if more land ownership were concentrated into fewer hands or more hands ?



would the US economy be better if those 25 families owned 5% of all US land ?

if so, would the US economy be twice as good if those 25 families owned 10% of all US land ?



at what point does it become too much in the hands of too few ?

or does it ever reach that point ?



And it's really funny that Mr. de Soto talks about how they trade livestock in developing countries and then compares that with somebody trading 40000 cattle in the US.



You can't compare small family farms to large corporate ranches. It's apples and oranges.



And he is either ignoring or is ignorant of small local farms in the US that DO trade livestock the same way as those small farms in developing countries.



I think people and companies should obviously own their music and movies (which means downloading movies and music without paying for it is wrong)



I think people should obviously own their inventions and be protected by patent



I think people should obviously own their businesses and be the sole deciders of what to do with the profits



but I think Mr. de Soto is totally wrong with his reasoning as to why governments want "the rule of law"

it has nothing to do with making their people or their country prosperous



it has everything to do with giving the government control and with taxes



you can't build, trade, import or export without the government's say so and without the proper forms and inspections and permits and fees (unless you're one of those small local farmers he seems to look down on who trade independently and without the "rule of law")



and there's more to the foundation of prosperity than just addresses, paperwork, banks and credit



how many times have we read stories of banks repossessing and demolishing the WRONG home because the bank got the foreclosure paper work wrong

https://www.google.com/search?q=Banks+repossessed+the+WRONG+home



and let's not forget the role of banks, credit, government and "rule of law" in the the financial crisis of 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_crisis_impact_timeline#1995.E2.80.932000



http://banking.about.com/od/mortgages/a/mortgagecrisis.htm



http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/08/chronology-2008-financial-crisis-lehman/2779515/



so,

can the world be made better through property rights ?

probably, but there's so much more to it than just that



and is it possible to make the world better WITHOUT property rights

maybe, but again there's so much more to it than just that

Answer 3

Some property is rightly private-- m,ost is rightly public.

The public has roles, people have rights and gthe economy should be governed democratically,

- not by businesses, the people.

Answer 4

Liberals are not communists first of all. Second of all you cons shouldn't talk about the importance of property rights if you support keystone.

Answer 5

The native americans had no concept of property



They lived in balance with the environment, they had plenty of food and water. They hunted all day and had sex all night. Seems like they had it sorted.



Depends on how you define 'better' of course...

Answer 6

Not all liberals are against property rights. In fact, I would guess, most are not. It would be more a matter of degree and how such rights were used and possibly abused.

Answer 7

Not sure your point. It is the GOP that wants to use eminent domain to seize farm land and build Keystone XL. Or did you just walk out of your cave?

Answer 8

Hate to burst your bubble, but property rights are pretty much THE Liberal idea.

Answer 9

Wrong forum.

Answer 10

Apparently conservatives think so.

Answer 11

NO...............