Was listening to my Sunday show about the future of democracy. There was this man talking about the right to ownership. Now I am an old socialist and have never thought much about the right to ownership, yes, people could own their house and their cars etc etc, but the right to do this was never really high on my agenda. But he was talking about this right and its connection to democracy. He quoted the economist Hernando de Soto who basically is saying that people wont be good participants in a democracy unless they own something. This I think is a pretty interesting point, can you make good decisions about yourself and your society if you don't have anything to loose?
This I relate to a study that was shown in the film The Corporation where they said that a corporation behaved like a psychopath based on the behavioral pattern of many corporations. Now the step from the ownership to corporation is a bit of a step but I think the first incorporates the other so I don't know what to think about this, one the one hand it seems logical what de Soto is saying but on the other hand experience about corporations and when people hide behind the legal document to make their decisions (that is the responsibility of the decision does not lie with the decision makers directly, but goes through the corporation) is a bad one. Is it possible to make a working system out of these two and at the same time ensure the well being of the whole?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think de Soto is terribly wrong. I think this is a good example of a pure capitalistic point of view - where the main forces behind your decision is to increase your capital or income...
I would say every single person in a society is a good participant of democracy - the less she/he owns the better participant is she/he.
Poor people might not have money, cars or houses in the best locations to loose - but that does not mean that they have anything to loose...
Post a Comment