Iāve been wondering quite a bit lately about whether there should be some absolute limits on wealth and property accumulation, I havenāt come to any firm conclusions about that though. Might be a good subject for a debate I think.
Who should set such limits? No one.
There can be no limits to freedom, or it is not freedom.
And in what way can an individualās wealth possibly be bad, however great it is?
As we say in the āArticles of Reasonā on our website:
āMy liberty should be limited by nothing except everyone elseās liberty.ā
https://theatheistconservative.com/articles-of-reason/
Or as an English judge once put it, āThe liberty of your fist ends where my nose begins.ā
I do tend to agree, but the wealthiest are getting richer and richer in the modern world and they are acting increasingly above the law. It is not their wealth that Iām worried about, itās what theyāve been choosing to do with that wealth.
Might there come a point though where someoneās ownership of property might constitute a threat to your liberty? If you are no longer free to own land because somebody else has bought all the land, then is not your liberty limited by that? Land is one resource that is truly finite, and there is hardly a square inch of the planet that is not owned by either an individual or a government nowadays.
Above the law? If they are that, it is the fault of those whose job it is to enforce the law.
In America now there are many who are above the law without being extremely wealthy. The Clintons, for example, and Hunter Biden and his pa. Or even not wealthy at all, as were the thousands of rioters who committed arson, theft, assault and murder for months in 2020 with impunity.
Governments should not own land. Governments should not own anything.
But what is the objection to private ownership?
Or are you just making a case for there to be ample commons?
Non-citizens should not be able to own real estate.
Foreign governments should be absolutely forbidden to own so much as an inch of it.
Communist enemy governments should be prevented from even looking at it or inhaling the breeze that comes off it.
In my opinion the biggest fraud of all time has been perpetrated in the shape of the scamdemic and yet I have to admit Iām not sure if it would even be possible to bring the chief perpetrators to justice, because I fear they would have āplausible deniabilityā (Iām thinking in particular of Bill Gates). Thereās also the problem that the crime potentially could include many members of governments, the media, and some academics, it is so vast that it is hard to imagine how the perpetrators could be brought to justice.
This all leads me to the conclusion that when you have enough wealth you can orchestrate a crime that cannot be prosecuted in a court of law, also you have many influential connections in society and endless resources to pay legal defence teams. Eventually I do hope we may see some corporations brought to justice particularly in the pharmaceutical industry, but they would be token victories while those who I believe are the most guilty would get away scot free. Also companies like Pfizer have been prosecuted before, it doesnāt seem to alter their business approach in the slightest.
As for the non-wealthy criminals I think they only get away with their crimes because they have the support of the wealthy. The judiciary are increasingly being replaced with George Soros appointees in the US are they not?
I totally agree.
Governments should own government buildings and ministry of defence land e.g. for artillery practice etc., but yes beyond that I agree.
Iām not objecting to private ownership just suggesting that perhaps there ought to be some sort of upper limit on it, so that no individual could own more than say a hundred thousand acres or something in total. The idea of this rich computer programmer buying up farmerās land and then leasing it back to them and making their lives even more miserable, after he has just driven small businesses to the wall with his mass scamdemic is just utterly grotesque to me.
Iām not making a case for ample commons, no, I hadnāt really thought about that.
Everything Bill Gates and his cronies in Big Pharma and the government are doing is utterly grotesque.
Iām sure thereās a nefarious purpose behind Gatesā buying of all that land.
I suppose its legal, but he himself, in a just world, would be in prison right now with no right to do it.
Some of the Soros people are being recalled. One has been, more probably will be. They have done much harm. Soros himself belongs behind bars. A born criminal if ever there was one.
But his misuse of his billions is not a reason to stop others becoming as rich or richer.
I take your point that vast wealth can buy privilege. Can and does. But still that is no reason to set limits on how rich anyone may become.
Equality before the law is an indispensable condition of liberty. In the US now it needs to be enforced.
In true democracies, āgovernment ownedā buildings and land belong to the people.
There are people on the left who are rebelling against the COVID-19 tyranny, but of course mostly they seem to be concluding that capitalism is the problem. I think we need to have some very strong arguments and counter explanations for what has gone wrong, otherwise thereās quite a strong risk that we will see a Corbyn/Bernie Sanders type of populist uprising. Thatās one reason why Iām thinking about all this at the moment, Iāll come back to it, itās getting late here time to log off.