"What private property does is connect effort to reward, creating an incentive for people to produce for more. Then, if there's a free market, people will trade their surpluses to others for the things they lack. Mutual exchange for mutual benefit makes the community richer."
Private property is the very essence of free enterprise, free market economics, capitalism and individual freedom.
If I don't own my ability to offer my private enterprise, whatever that may be, to the market place, what is, to use Mr. Stossel's word, my INCENTIVE to do so?
Notice how what is done in the scenario portrayed by the quote above is all voluntary?
> There is no force in free market activity.
> There is no force in free enterprise.
> There is no force in risking one's personal fortune in a venture in the attempt to exchange mutually with others, and benefit thereby.
And there is a whole lot of upside potential when we are allowed to do so. The upside can benefit everybody, including whole societies.
But there is a huge downside potential to such freedom as well.
With the freedom of choice, one can choose to act, or choose to be acted upon.
What if someone chooses not to prepare for participation in the market place? What if someone chooses not to become educated enough to learn to think independently? That is the aim of education, right, to learn to think for oneself?
What if one chooses not to read and become informed by information - fiction and non-fiction - and learn of people, places and things, events, scenarios, mistakes and successes?
What if one does not develop an interest or sharpen a personal skill to the point where that skill might be useful, or productive, in the market place?
What if someone is under motivated by life? Decides to lolly gag, or participate in activities that do not benefit one's future, dropping out, as it were, in an economically-competitive way.
Naming some of those -
- involved in pop-culture television for hours every day or having ear buds blasting unending streams of loud music, even while one watches the hours of television;
- or hour after hour on a computer or phone engaging in social media to keep abreast of useless information about "friends," or other avatar photographs of people best known electronically;
- or commit mental suicide by smoking something all day;
- or drug involvement to the point of utter addiction;
- or playing video games striving very hard to get to the next level;
- or create a fringe life style, looking as odd or shocking as possible, and hanging around all day with similar fringe types, the birds-of-a-feather thing;
- or not getting trained or wanting to train in productive skills?
So, who should take care of these?
Their parents? Society in general? A facility? Churches? A home where birds of a feather can flock together? Themselves?
Are they not themselves deciding what to do with their own private property and their own private lives?
What of those who may be able, but privately decide not to connect effort with reward, mutually trading what they are able to trade for the benefit of their own lives and others?
Remember, in a free enterprise sense, in an individual freedom sense, they are not forced to participate, they are not forced to contribute.
So, who takes care of these?
These who may be able, but decide not to take care of themselves? Who?