Well it also just doesn’t really accord with any view of the nature and justification of property rights that I’m familiar with. The Lockeans wouldn’t like it, the utilitarians would demand evidence that such a way of arranging things would produce better outcomes, and the “property rights reflect a need to assign the right of way for using material objects so people can pursue their own goals and projects” crowd would probably be uncomfortable with all of the kinds of plans that would be effectively ruled out by such a regime. I’m just not seeing what kind of argument would justify this sort of idea.
I can send you something from a guy who has trying to convince me of the Mutualist theory of active use for awhile. But I agree, some of it leaves me scratching my head.
Well why not post some of it if it’s useful? We can try to figure it out together.
I mean, if someone built an apartment building in order to house tenants, and then lived somewhere else and collected rent, would that count as absentee ownership? It seems odd to think so, given that the construction of the apartment was clearly meant for the purpose of renting it out, and so the renting would be the “use” for which is was intended.
you might want to take a look at the quote from my thread about this subject.