>(with the exception of trespassing on private property, of course).
This ought to be removed too, along with the whole concept of property.
This ought to be removed too, along with the whole concept of property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
Especially in the Nordic countries. Having grown up in Norway, the idea of people e.g. fencing in fields or forests and keeping people off their land seems ludicrous and to an extent offensive. It's a massive restriction of liberty of the many for the benefit of the few.
(it's worth noting that the freedom to roam is generally restricted to non-urban areas, so e.g. not gardens in residential areas and the like)
Go ahead and abolish all your own property, you're free to do so.
Or was it more about you wanting to be entitled to product of your fellow man's labor?
I do not own any private property.
>Or was it more about you wanting to be entitled to product of your fellow man's labor?
No; in fact, the exact opposite. It is about the worker owning the product of his own labour, rather than having it appropriated when production has finished. To each according to his labour.
This is why I insist on working as a contractor and not as an employee: I want to own my intellectual property until I choose to sell it, and I want to create and sell a product that's useful, not be paid for my time.
I recently heard "land-ownership tax/renting land from the state instead of owning it" and "100% tax on death/abolish inheritance", I think they're interesting but not without problems.
One could argue that your kids did not earn that money either. As a reasonable middle ground, I think that we there could be a "good future for the children" exemption (at say $20m per child), while the rest is taxed at 100%. This prevents the natural process of concentration of all wealth in the hands of the few.
The process is called war. Properties are not valuable when tenants and landlords keep dying and the properties themselves might get destroyed.