How to determine who owns the land?
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Well said,
But the baby yet unborn is not a baby. IMO.
anyway the rest of you post sounded amazing
oh yeah? so your favorite author, musician, journalist, actor, director, etc. have no exclusive ownership and no right to make a living off of their own personal artistic and intellectual products huh?
your thoughts and writing are not very clear to me, sorry. :bugeye:
I guess you missed the whole point of my post. The entire concept of "private property," is childish and spiritually immature when it comes to natural and community resources. How can one "own" something that is part of nature? It's absolutely preposterous. "HEY, stop it, that is my air you're breathing!" lol NOBODY does anything that makes them more deserving, nor does anything that gives them the right to "own" property/air/water/minerals/space, it is immoral.
Who gives anyone that "right" to keep and "own" private property? The governments? Who gave them the original rights to decide to buy and sell the land deeds to the people with the most money so they could collect their tax revenues? It's just one big criminal racket that is biased in favor of those with money and land.
This is what causes all the trouble. In western societies we take it for granted that this is the natural state of things. However, in every other society in the world? It's foolishness, and it causes greed, war, violence, and unending sorrow. That is all I am getting at.
If you're interested, you can watch a documentary in this thread, where a corporation took over a third world country, and decided it was going to "own" all the water. :roflmao:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=94949
Yeah, right. You can see how that went over. Eventually, humankind will wake up, when the population gets high enough, and realize the same thing about land. They will altogether quit paying property tax/mortgages/rents, what have you. It's slavery.
The reason that the idea of owning air is ludicrous is because the supply is so abundant that even if you and everyone else on the planet decided to deliberately use as much as possible the supply would still far outstrip demand.
This is however *not* the case with land.
thank you, i do my best to try to remember to not debate but to make sure my point of view is only understood, and then leave it up to others to take it and consider it, and then to accept or reject.
If this were the case, global warming and air pollution would not be an issue.
Watch this five minute news report and tell me if you really think that hastily spoken statement out of your small world of experience is an accurate statement of reality.
In the 18th century, the average American, if they wanted their own land? They had the same attitude, all you needed to do, was head out west. Hell, even Europeans and Asians knew all you had to do was flee to America. Now, sure, air seems to be, "so abundant." Not so in the very near future.
Back when I was growing up, if you had told me that one day they would be selling water for $1 a bottle where ever you buy COKE? Do you know what I would have thought? :bugeye:
STAKE OUT YOUR CLAIM ON AIR NOW (link)
But that is precisely the point. Nobody should get to own the land, correct? What gives anyone the right to own the land? Believe it or not, airspace IS owned, as are lakes, rives, sea zones, fisheries, rivers, etc. EVERYTHING is owned.
You may not think the air you are breathing is owned. . . . but it is. If a Chinese jet fighter flew over your house today, some air force would be all over that like flies on shit.
Obviously if there was some dramatic change in the supply of or demand for air then the situation would change.
I am talking about right *now*.
I am talking about right *now*.
I believe John Locke used the argument that you could only claim ownership if you'd improved the land somehow. Built some permanent sructures on it, planted crops, that sort of thing. Anyone living as a nomad wouldn't qualify as owning any land.