[ExI] Belief in Free Market Efficiency

[Thomas]

> The question is, where does the legitimacy of the capitalist's
> ownership of potentially productive resources come from? Note that the
> moral question is separate from the practical question: to show that
> it is useful to allow some people to acquire large fortunes is not
> necessarily the same as saying that it is fair. [...]
> --  
> Stathis Papaioannou


Defensibility of claim to title has served (by default) to legitimize  
of ownership.  Tied to citzenship this could mean various things in  
various cities.  I'd like to see this idea refined to exclude  
reliance on naked power (violence).  I would include priority of  
claim, establishment of boundaries and evidence of competence to hold  
and make productive use of the resource (even just conserving its  
"natural" state) as legitimizing claim to title.  As civilized  
humans, any use of violence to establish claim voids legitimacy!

I have the idea (apparently totally original) that collective title  
represents a primitive archaic uncivilized method of claiming title.   
I think many instances of collective title have the taint of violence  
at their root.  Collective title linked with "limited liability"  
creates injustice and inequality.  An across the board ban on  
collective title would solve many, many social problems by placing  
responsibility for the use of resources on the head of legally  
accessible sole owners.  Community property disputes would become a  
thing of the past.  Courts could focus on protecting individual  
rights since the corporate loopholes would disappear.  Majority rule  
would no longer mean enslavement of the minority.  -- Thomas