I think it might be wise to couch this within a larger discussion of private property and ownership, in general. Libertarians seem to think that private ownership of property facilitates good stewardship of that property. The tragedy of the commons argues that's not the case because the scope of ownership is ambiguous.
That wealth that is accumulated is, at least in negligible part, *everyone's* property. So not only is Bezos not Bezos. But Bezos' property is not Bezos' property ... or as some parents are fond of saying "I brought you into this world. I can take you out." On 3/12/21 12:31 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a > discussion on "What is Wealth for". I believe we have attended to this > on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that > "Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"? > > Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one thing in > common, Wealth. I'd be interested to hear others riff a little more on > their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?" -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
