Who is the economy for?

Olof Manner ponders in Affärsvärlän whether democracy is capable of solving the EU countries' economic situation. This raises the question of who the economy is for.

Olof Manner reflects in Affärsvärlden on the conditions of the economy in the EU and how long it may take before Europe gets back on its feet. He writes: "Democracy's strength lies in the fact that the people get to decide who rules. Conversely, the weakness of democracy lies in the fact that politicians who try to implement far-reaching, unpopular – albeit necessary – measures tend to disappear in favor of those who make promises. Does democracy have the strength to push through the measures required for Europe to get back on its feet?"

Under the surface of the quote's reasoning lies the unspoken question of who the economy is for.

I mean that scientifically private ownership can never be proven. Legally, you own a thing if you acquired it through legal custody from a person who in turn acquired it through legal custody. But at the end of this circle, someone has started the chain of ownership by stealing from nature. This prisoner takes place in a lawless existence. What determines whether one should have the right to take things from nature is the social acceptance of the human environment. A reasonable reason for approving the theft of nature is if private ownership benefits the human environment. If it does not, the human environment, like the once-acknowledged legality of nature theft, may withdraw its acceptance.

I also mean that since nature theft takes place in a lawless state, there must not be a single voice of protest for the nature theft to be legitimate. The legitimation of a theft of nature is a legal fiction and can only be legitimate if everyone agrees.

Thus, private ownership should only be accepted insofar as it benefits the people. Now if the private property right negotiates to such claims that it requires almost annihilation of the social welfare that is now happening in Greece and several other euro countries, then should not the majority demand that the debts be written off and that we start over?

Should private property rights exist to benefit private property rights? Then maybe democracy is bad? Or is private property only acceptable as long as it benefits general social welfare and employment? Then democracy is better.

 

Source: http://www.affarsvarlden.se/tidningen/article3488467.ece