You didn’t set the categories, the original post was: “Imagine if — on top of that - we let the undeserving rich invest their wealth in things such as:
- owning media”
You can have private ownership without the owners automatically being rich. Further the owners could be rich without qualifying as undeserving rich by whatever metric the post’s author had in mind.
This whole conversation has been about my "false dichotomy" of state and private ownership.
E.g. from LeonB:
> I mean of course — who should own media.. we have precisely two choices, and no possibility to imagine anything else! What you’ve put forward is known as a false dichotomy. That is a situation where you present two options as if they are the only options.
No, you used the words “Private people” in direct response to someone complaining about ownership of the media by the wealthy.
That’s not equivalent to all forms of non governmental ownership in that context. Charities are not owned by private people quite literally as they can’t liquidate assets etc. You can be convinced of Theft if you take assets from a charity you set up.
If you want to now redefine your point as all forms of non government ownership then that’s simply a strawman arguemnt in terms of the person you where replying to.
You can have private ownership without the owners automatically being rich. Further the owners could be rich without qualifying as undeserving rich by whatever metric the post’s author had in mind.
That said, thanks for providing my point ;-)