Criticism of Lockean absentee property right

[Jon_Irenicus]

It would seem so.

[MacFall]

@ThorsMitersaw

@Morty

Here’s my thought on this.

If it was true that you, yourself have to be the one continuing the “on-going project” that would imply that having employees is essentially releasing your right to certain things. For example, if you have a maid, then you “abandon” all your cleaning supplies. If you have field workers for your farm, then you are “abandoning” both the crops and the land itself. If you have a business where you hire a manager to run the store, you “abandon” the business. Furthermore, you might come to the conclusion that the owner of a park “abandons” it by opening it to the public. This seems absurd on its face (at least to me), so it is equally absurd that a landlord abandons his property when renting it. Think of the tenant as an employee of the landlord if it helps, as someone who keeps the property in order, to the specifications of the rental contract, and is given compensation in the form of being allowed to live on the property. Or think of the renter as someone visiting a park and paying a fee. Either way, we can reformulate our thinking on what a renter is to make it very clear that absentee ownership is perfectly legitimate.

Well I think you would find that they would not be very opposed to the manager and store or boss and employee scenario at all.

In that case, they contradict themselves.

[ThorsMitersaw]

@MacFall

@ThorsMitersaw

@Morty

Here’s my thought on this.

If it was true that you, yourself have to be the one continuing the “on-going project” that would imply that having employees is essentially releasing your right to certain things. For example, if you have a maid, then you “abandon” all your cleaning supplies. If you have field workers for your farm, then you are “abandoning” both the crops and the land itself. If you have a business where you hire a manager to run the store, you “abandon” the business. Furthermore, you might come to the conclusion that the owner of a park “abandons” it by opening it to the public. This seems absurd on its face (at least to me), so it is equally absurd that a landlord abandons his property when renting it. Think of the tenant as an employee of the landlord if it helps, as someone who keeps the property in order, to the specifications of the rental contract, and is given compensation in the form of being allowed to live on the property. Or think of the renter as someone visiting a park and paying a fee. Either way, we can reformulate our thinking on what a renter is to make it very clear that absentee ownership is perfectly legitimate.

Well I think you would find that they would not be very opposed to the manager and store or boss and employee scenario at all.

In that case, they contradict themselves.

mind elaborating?