Buying food in order to destroy it is bad.
Buying art in order to destroy it, also bad.
Ownership itself is a pragmatic social construct: you “own” things insofar as that “makes sense.”
Does it make sense for Amazon to own rare books? Not really. I’m not sure why that would be allowed. It’s like a child owning a rocket. It simply makes no sense in most contexts.
Buying food in order to destroy it is bad.
Buying art in order to destroy it, also bad.
Ownership itself is a pragmatic social construct: you “own” things insofar as that “makes sense.” Does it make sense for Amazon to own rare books? Not really. I’m not sure why that would be allowed. It’s like a child owning a rocket. It simply makes no sense in most contexts.
Buying food in order to destroy it is bad.
Buying art in order to destroy it, also bad.
Purchasing anything in order to destroy it is at minimum wasteful and pollutive.
Ownership itself is a pragmatic social construct: you “own” things insofar as that “makes sense.” Does it make sense for Amazon to own rare books? Not really. I’m not sure why that would be allowed. It’s like a child owning a rocket. It simply makes no sense in most contexts.
Buying food in order to destroy it is bad.
Buying art in order to destroy it, also bad.
Purchasing anything in order to destroy it is at minimum wasteful and pollutive.
Ownership itself is a pragmatic social construct: you “own” things insofar as that “makes sense.” Does it even make sense for Amazon to own rare books? Not really. I’m honestly not sure why that would be allowed. It’s like a child owning a rocket. It simply makes no sense in most contexts.
Buying food in order to destroy it is bad.
Buying art in order to destroy it, also bad.
Purchasing anything in order to destroy it is at minimum wasteful and pollutive.
Ownership itself is a pragmatic social construct. You “own” things insofar as that “makes sense.” Does it even make sense for Amazon to own rare books? Not really. I’m honestly not sure why that would be allowed to come about. It’s like a child owning a car. That makes no sense in most contexts (unless the car is a toy).
Buying food in order to destroy it is bad.
Buying art in order to destroy it, also bad.
Purchasing anything in order to destroy it is at minimum wasteful and pollutive.
All this highlights the context-dependent pragmatism of ownership. You “own” things insofar as that “makes sense.” Does it even make sense for Amazon to own rare books? Not really. I’m honestly not sure why that would be allowed to come about. It’s like a child owning a car. That makes no sense in most contexts (unless the car is a toy).
Buying food in order to destroy it is bad.
Buying art in order to destroy it, also bad.
Purchasing anything in order to destroy it is at minimum wasteful and pollutive.
All this highlights the context-dependent pragmatism of ownership. You “own” things insofar as that “makes sense.” Does it even make sense for Amazon to own rare books? Not really. I’m honestly not sure why that would be allowed to come about. It’s like a child owning a car. That makes no sense in most contexts (unless the car is a toy).
Buying food in order to destroy it is bad.
Buying art in order to destroy it, also bad.
Purchasing anything in order to destroy it is at minimum wasteful and pollutive.
Ultimately, these examples highlights the context-dependent pragmatism of ownership. You “own” things insofar as that “makes sense.” Does it even make sense for Amazon to own rare books? Not really. I’m honestly not sure why that would be allowed to come about. It’s like a child owning a car. That makes no sense in most contexts (unless the car is a toy).
Buying food in order to destroy it is bad.
Buying art in order to destroy it, also bad.
Purchasing anything in order to destroy it is at minimum wasteful and pollutive.
Ultimately, these examples highlights the context-dependent pragmatism of ownership. You “own” things insofar as that “makes sense.” Does it even make sense for Amazon to own rare books? Not really. I’m honestly not sure why that would be allowed to come about. It’s like a child owning a car. That makes no sense in most contexts (unless the car is a toy).
If someone is buying food in order to destroy it. That’s bad.
If someone is buying art in order to destroy it, also bad.
Purchasing anything in order to destroy it is wasteful and pollutive.
Ultimately, these examples highlights the context-dependent pragmatism of ownership. You “own” things insofar as that “makes sense.” Does it even make sense for Amazon to own rare books? Not really. I’m honestly not sure why that would be allowed to come about. It’s like a child owning a car. That makes no sense in most contexts (unless the car is a toy).