Replies

The acquistion of capital in the distant past by means now covered by sacred prescription, is exactly what I am denying matters a tuppenny damn for the proposition I am propounding. Which is emphatically not "everyone with wealth deserves it" but "providing wealth to others for their use is, in itself, a productive service that deserves the payment it receives".

I don't care how you got $1000 dollars. You could burn it or eat it or hang it on your walls. If instead you lend it or invest it and earn an income by doing so, that income is rightfully yours for the useful service you have provided by not burning, eating, or hanging it on your walls, and instead lending it out or otherwise making it productive to the uses of other men.

When a socialist or a radical decides to arraign every owner of property before the bar of his private ideological requirements, and decides that no actually he isn't thoroughly Stalinist enough, or thoroughly libertarian enough, or holy enough - to me it makes not a damn bit of difference which piety is alleged, because its is a mere allegation and impudence regardless - and that therefore he doesn't deserve his property (or the income from it), and therefore it is just peachy to rob him - that is exactly what I am denying as the characteristic political evil of our time. On all sides.

Nobody needs an OK from you to own anything. If he owns it he owns it, its his, get your grubbing nose out. And if he then makes is available to productive uses, himself or by lending it out, he furthermore deserves the earnings his capital generates. And, to put it in a walnutshell, you don't.

At what point do you consider unjustly acquired wealth to have acquired this invulerable patina of sacred prescription? You do agree it is possible to acquire wealth in an unjust and immoral way, I assume?

I’m curious because some recent lawsuits have resulted in recoveries by descendants of Jews robbed before and during WWII. That’s a good 60 to 70 years ago.

So apparently the present owners of those properties were not covered by your right of sacred prescription.

OTOH, if you extent property rights back far enough just about all real property was stolen from somebody and the present title is therefore invalid. Heck, this would mean American blacks are owed reparations for the undeniable crimes committed against the property rights of their ancestors.

I’m not trying to be snide, although I admit it’s a challenge. :) Some line must obviously be drawn where property rights vest in the possessor. Drawn too soon it results in criminals grabbing property and then claiming they have every right to it. Drawn too late innocent heirs suffer. Where do you think the line should be drawn and why?