The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family. Therefore, it should not be owned by others. There is no freedom for a man who lives in another’s house, whether he pays rent or not.

If a person thinks he wants to move from an interior village to Tripoli, this clause says that he should sell his house in the village and buy another in Tripoli –
1. There is no buyer for his house as it is a very remote village and no one wants to come to it.
2. He gets a buyer. He gets some money on selling. The buyer can’t possess a second house. Which means everyone in the society should sell their houses and buy the new ones triggering a chain reaction. Does that mean he can sell only to a person who hasn’t got a house? Is it possible for one to be without house? Other option is he should sell it to the government only. If the government sells it at the cost he demands, then no one is going to listen to the government and it’s sure to be toppled. If the government buys it at the cost it wants, then it is repression. Also, can the second house be in some other country?
3. He gets the money. The money may be sufficient to buy a house in a village but not in Tripoli. Does that mean he shouldn’t live in Tripoli since he is not eligible to live there? Does it not make him unhappy?
4. If a person has got some sort of touring job, where will he stay? If it is a private firm, it should not own any property which is in excess of it’s needs. Does it mean that it should not own any quarters since all the employees had got their own houses? Does this mean even in case of national emergency, no one can come to the rescue by relocation without selling his house?

The wealth of the world has limits at each stage as does the wealth of each individual society. Therefore no individual has the right to carry out economic activity in order to acquire more of that wealth than is necessary to satisfy his needs, because the excess amount belongs to other individuals. He has the right to save from his needs and from his own production but not from the efforts of others nor at the expense of their needs.

First statement says no one should own more than what he needs. If this is the case, how can he save, even if it is from his own production?

The third is the only one who produces without apathy and without coercion. In the socialist society, there is no possibility for private production exceeding the satisfaction of individual needs, because satisfaction of needs at the expense of others is not allowed.

Does this mean the weak should wilt away?

Advertisements