|
I do not agree that opting out is the same. The rules agglomerating property rights are not just or rational. They are not organic like a coproration, nor do they in general protect my rights as Government SHOULD do. As many migrants are those who vote for policies that I find unpleasant, why should I care what these electors think when under your logic, they have merely dissapated my strength of ownership? Under your logic, the Aboriginies are entitled to tell everyone what to do. If not them, then every action of Parliament is justified as they are de jure legitimate. Again it is a case of SHOULD and IS. (Would you like to know what my definition of "is" is?) "The point about property ownership is that the owner(s) don't have to justify their decisions about utility. That's what makes it ownership." Oh yes they do. To me. Especially when me and my ancestors never chose to join the collective, my residuals get "reinvested" without my authority and the decisions are often NOT utility maximising for anyone, only in a world of downwardly spiralling second best arguments. Do you know of a corporation that can soak out reinvested profit that comes out of their investor's personal income? Hey, wait a minute, doesn't the Government have a monopoly on force - that ALWAYS gets abused?
| 
