Getting past the rather bizarre and kind of gross story about the severed foot, it helps illustrate the difference between the right to be an owner, and the rights of ownership. This video is pretty good about the rights OF ownership, but really weak on the right to be an owner in the first place. This can lead to massive confusion and causes some people to think that because the rights OF ownership are almost infinitely flexible, the right to be an owner is equally so.
No, the caveat is that you may define the rights OF property in any way that does not undermine the right to be an owner in the first place. For example, it is okay (in theory) to say that no one may own a car, but not to say that only people who have so much in income or voted for the right politician may own a car. Of course, owning a car and being able to operate it can also be different, but that’s not the same as the right to own; that is a right OF ownership, and may be socially and legally determined.
That is why the Economic Democracy Act is focused on one, enabling people to own, and two, what and how they could own::
CLICK ON THE LINKS, NOT THE PHOTO
You must click on the link below to get to the video, not on the photo.
(The links right above are what you're supposed to click on.)
And if you want the playlists for previous videos:
Economic Personalism (The Book)
Economic Personalism v. The Great Reset
Socialism, Modernism and the New Age
#30#
