How can it be economically responsible to destroy property which has value?
If a property is destroyed (which is the right of the property holder in most cases, I do not dispute that) then, the holder robs themselves of the economic benefit of otherwise disposing of the property which has value and that they no longer want, rob the economy also of that passed on benefit or, at least their heirs and the future economy are robbed of the benefit.
How can this be economically responsible dominion over property?
I take it that under most jurisdictions a company would be prevented from doing the same as it is not in the best interests of the company, a principle which the directors must uphold.
I wish to gain an economic view of flaw/benefit this practice.
Can this even be justified in such extreme circumstance as; I possess the only ten copy Picasso's, they are validated and dated and, there is no surviving original. I destroy nine of the ten copies.