Right of ownership has always existed. Right of ownership was established when the first prehistoric monkey gave a hairy backhand to his fellow simian for trying to eat the food in his tree. Was the hairy knuckle to the face an illusion? Was the defeated monkey's eye tricked into swelling by a dream sequence of primate savagery? Didn't the victorious monkey declare his ownership via the slap heard across the world? - Cue the Strauss Also Sprach Zarathustra music.ThisDinosaur wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2017 12:33 pm@IlliniDave
Its not the resources/materials or even the money that is an illusion. It is the right of ownership that is an illusion. Wealth is the combination of the two.
Just because the right of ownership is transferred (via violence or peaceful agreement), doesn't make it an illusion in the true sense of the word - it's more accurate to say that ownership is a temporary state, with subjective utility, and vulnerable to external forces. But it's very real, has always been real, and will continue to be real as long as there is sentient life. Its transitory state makes it no less real than the fog hovering in the air that eventually dissipates in the heat of the sun.
But for the sake of argument lets say it is an illusion - this doesn't discount its utility or ability to generate real wealth. We all know that this "ownership rights illusion" narrative is mostly seen in arguments trying to dissuade others from achieving or to justify the forced relocation of capital.