Tasks and decisions

Riddle of mutual possession

The company A owns 100 % of shares of the company B, and B owns 100 % of shares of the company A. Both companies are managed by their executive directors. Who owns the companies A and B in real?

mutual possession As A owns 100 % of shares of the company B, then, the owner of the company A simultaneously is the owner of the company B. Hence, both companies - A and B - are in possession of the same owner - we shall name him A&B. Directors of both companies A and B (we shall designate them d1 and d2 accordingly) also belong to the owner & as all other property.

Owner & is the one who controls even one of directors d1 or d2, - as the director of other company also belongs & automatically. If at least one of directors is controlled by nobody - that he is the real owner & who owns both companies.

 

Antarctica

The first who opens Antarctica were researchers of the country A. The first who have set up a national flag on South Pole were citizens of the country B. On Antarctica constantly work scientific stations of the countries C and D. Most close to Antarctica located countries E and F.
Who (what country) should possess Antarctica?

The state belonging of discoverers, scientific researchers and the neighborhood with Antarctica is not the basis for possession appropriation. According to a principle of equal co-ownership the territory of all Earth belongs to all living people in an equal measure. Antarctica is a part of territory of the Earth, therefore the territory of Antarctica belongs to all people in an equal measure.

 

Red-haired separatists

In country A the majority of population are brunettes, but red-haired separatists have activated in one of the region. Having the democratic rights, they have chosen to themselves the red-haired leader, successfully have taken a local referendum concerning separation, then have proclaimed the independence from the center.
Whether the central government should recognize the red-haired independence?

According to the principle of equal co-ownership all territory of country A - including where red-haired live - belongs to all citizens of the country in an equal measure (both to red-haired, and to brunettes). If to admit, that the part of citizens can withdraw the land to their possession, then, and any separate citizen can withdraw their share of land. Free withdrawal of the land in separate possession will lead to situation, when the future generations cannot co-ownership the land in an equal measure, so the principle of equal co-ownership will be broken. Thus, the central government should not to recognize any self-declarations of independence.

 

Referendum and separatism

On a nation-wide referendum the majority of the population has supported that separatists (red-haired) can be separated together with territory on which they live.
Whether the separatism problem is solved correctly?

No, it is not. The question of belonging of a territory cannot be solved by voting (referendum) at all. If to admit, that the majority of citizens can to give a part of territory to certain exterior owners (in particular, red-haired), than the majority can to transfer all territory to itself only (brunettes), having excluded minority of citizens (in particular, red-haired) from co-owners of the land, than the principle of equal co-ownership will be broken.

 

Taxes and economy

Whether low taxes stimulate the economy growth?

Any compulsion only worsens development routes of owners. In particular, if compulsion touches routes which refer to commercial activity these routes become less attractive to realization. As taxes are compulsion, they only brake business. The lower a taxes level - the business braking is weaker. It's impossible to stimulate economy by methods of compulsion (to accelerate it). The best conditions for achievement of economic growth are achieved only by elimination of all obstacles which are various forms of compulsions (in particular, and mainly the taxes).

 

State monopoly over monetary circulation

The government has established a monopoly over monetary circulation: i.e. has forbidden circulation of foreign currency in the home market.
Is this decision correct?

Any interdictions on using acts or on exchanges concerning any property objects (foreign currency, in particular) is compulsion. This compulsion leads to increase the level of compulsions in a society that is immoral. So, establishing the monopoly over monetary circulation is wrong decision.

 

State monopoly over alcohol

The government, aspiring to fill up the budget, has established the state monopoly over manufacture of alcohol in the country.
Is this decision correct?

Really, such measure will allow to fill up public revenues essentially. However, the state monopoly is established by methods of compulsions: it is forbidden for owners to make own alcohol and to buy this alcohol. The monopoly over alcohol does not suppress any other compulsion so - it is immoral. The decision wrong.

 

Fountain of petrodollars

In one country, which export petroleum, reserves of foreign currency began quickly to grow as a result of sharp increase of oil prices. The government solves how to use these huge incomes. It is discussed three variants: the first - to transfer the main part of means to the stabilization fund, the second - to increase social programs, the third - to put means to the state branches of hi-tech manufacture.
What of variants is best?

All three variants are incorrect. The correct decision is as much as possible, on the sum equal to all incomes, to reduce taxes, as it will lead to significant decrease of a compulsions level in a society (as taxes are the compulsion).

 

To control inflation

As a result of sharp increase of oil prices the all other goods prices began to grow. To restrain inflation the government has decided to carry out a policy of freeze prices.
Is this decision correct?

Any price control of the exterior owners (in particular to force them to freeze prices) is a compulsion. As this compulsion does not eliminate any other compulsion, it will lead to increase the compulsions level in a society, that is immoral. The correct decision will be - to not interfere in a price policy of the exterior owners. The only thing, than should do the state - to help needy citizens directly.

 

Protectionism

To protect national manufacturers from foreign competitors, the government establish the trade barriers (it can be either customs or quotas on import).
Whether the customs barriers are satisfy the state interests?

Any trading restrictions - both the customs duties, and quotas - are compulsions, and are not directed to suppression of any greater compulsion. And the increase of the compulsions level cannot to satisfy the state interests, as the purpose of the state - to decrease the general level of compulsions.

 

Antimonopoly laws

Antimonopoly laws are based on the assumption, that the society will profit, restricting monopolies.
Whether to restrict monopolies is correct?

Monopolization processes occur by voluntary methods, as that: merge of several firms in a single, the coordinated price policy, division of commodity markets, etc. here there are no compulsions. So, as any antimonopoly law is compulsion, that is immoral. Such decision wrong.

 

Minimal wages

Showing concern about workers, the government has raised a minimum amount of payment. Now all employers should pay to their hired workers the salary that not less certain minimal amount.
How to determine the minimal amount of payment?

This regulation of actions of exterior owners is compulsion, as it is realized without mutual consent with employers. This compulsion does not eliminate any other compulsion, so it is immoral (as leads to increase the general level of compulsions). Thus, the state should not determine the minimal amount of payment for exterior employers. The state should to help needy citizens directly.

 


<-- axiomatic property theory
Hosted by uCoz