In line with the response to tourism, the opposition of some local voices to Jeff Bezos’ marriage in Venice shows some important points in economics and political philosophy. Financial Times report (“Jeff Bezos’ wedding will bring a storm of protests in Venice on June 24, 2025”):
“What’s going on here is blatant arrogance,” said 34-year-old Marta Sotoriva, a high school English teacher and activist. “I exploit cities in the same way he has exploited the world around the world and built an empire.” …
“Bezos’ wedding is a symbol of extreme wealth, privilege and many things that are wrong in the world right now, and is happening in “one of the world’s most climate-fragile cities,” said Greenpeace activist Clara Thomson. …
“The Venetians feel betrayed, ignored and forgotten,” said Tonmaso Bortozzi, a city council member of the opposition Democratic Party. “Many citizens feel that they have lost the ability to live their own lives in a calm, calm, traditional way.
The delicate classical philosophy suggests many objections. By doing so, it’s not where you live that you get a prohibited sommul body with an X-Mile radius and do a subthing you don’t like. Property rights grant you the right to use your own property as you wish, not the property of others. Otherwise, the concept of property rights is a user to prevent conflicts over resources and lifestyles. When he acts as a subject of his or even his reserved property, the subject you dislike, you will intervene in the life of your neighbor. Your neighbor will do the same to you.
Asserting the right to control a geographic location that is not you is similar to claiming that you have a right to your customers against competing suppliers. For example, domestic workers can be prohibited from purchasing from foreign (or non-local) suppliers through customs duties or prohibitions, as they have the right to sponsorship of domestic customers. This type of theory is Eisher’s inconsistent or authoritarianism. Having a custom right prevents the latter from having no right to choose these suppliers, just as they have their right to their own Venice, telling them that the Venetians of Oher Oher have no right to their own Venice. It encourages other vets to control what they can import or export. (Please remember that tourism is an export.)
In the rebuttal, the consistent, non-authoritarian concept of free exchange – the right to buy for his party. The same goes for the right to purchase pastries from local (or foreign) bakers who are willing to sell them. In a free society, buying and selling of Neesha is prohibited (with a few limited exceptions, such as the purchase of stolen goods and services for employers).
The vast, enforced claims of property rights by political authorities (“coercion” says it all) show Anthony of Jasai’s debate about an enemy or discriminatory state. The state (or related political authority) prefers sub-citizens to Arbitrey and hurts others – a vast claimant to the local hospitality industry and other businesses. They hope that political authorities will discriminate against AGA institutions against local businesses that are happy to do with this type of event.
Locals seeking to drive away tourists are also questioning the power of the mob in anarchy. In the 2016 econlog column, does Anthony show sub-sympathy for the idea that the country is Anthony of Jasaithems and that the country is not a sub-country like Venice? – An extension of the home of the residents. Perhaps it’s a short leap from this idea to the claim that Venetian mobs can drive tourists out of town. Impossibility, or at least difficult, the right to formal rage (as “freedom” says, like Jasai, he clearly distinguished between right and freedom) remains an unresolved issue. Take care, it’s not a problem resolved under the state’s Acer.
As for general tourism, it is interesting to note that, in the case of Bezos’ marriage, “special interests” – commercial interests – were on the side of free exchanges, while a kind of mob expresses the opposite. Also, Bezos’ size was a long-time conservative mayor of Venice. Perhaps it can be argued that, in the course of history, non-rimmed commercial interests are free to lie on their side (for this, see William Salter and Andrew Young, the Free Medieval Constitution; and more generally, John Hicks’ Theory of Economic History). I think most residents in Venice were satisfied or indifferent to the Bezos Party. At least that was true in a free society. Generally, each (and private groups) cares about their business and engages in a voluntary exchange that he thinks is in his interst as he defines it. This does not rule out the desirable or even poor ethical concerns about the key things in a free society (see James Buchanan’s Why I am not a Conservative either).
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Picasso style painting by Bezos and Sanchez and Chatgput in Venice
Picasso style drawings by Bezos and Sanchez from Venice, chatgpt
