Pharm Girl

"Two brothers were fighting over a piece of land, each believing that he was the rightful owner.

A Rabbi was called to mediate, and each brother told his side of the story.

After listening to them, the Rabbi said, "I now need to hear from the third party".

He knelt down and put his ear to the ground”

(McKenna 1997 in Senehi 2000).

matthewmunari

im assuming the rabbi was being sarcastic, cause an inanimate object cant speak...so who got the land??????????(im being serious)

__________________
http://www.unsigned.com/reparation

Smaerd

You don't get it matt. No one OWNS any land.

Canuck Wisdom

Do we even own our own bodies?

I mean, I just sort of woke up with mine.

__________________
-Knowitall A&P type-

snapshot

Does anyone else own it, by your definition (of ownership)?

Is anyone else responsible for it and its actions? Are you responsible for it and its actions? Is there something that we're able to define as "You" that wills the body?

These are the types of questions I ask when it comes to whether or not we own our own bodies.

When we concern ourselves with the responsibility of our actions, we get to thinking about how we own and are therefore responsible for our actions. We are responsible for what we destroy and are responsible for that which we create, for if we aren't, any talk of responsibility would be inconsistent with our beliefs.

If you whittle a flute, does that flute belong to no one, and therefore belong to everyone equally? Or does no one have more of a right to that flute than you do? What if you till and farm a patch of land in order to grow crops? Are you responsible for the land, or is everyone entitled to the fruits of your labor?

This is all just to explore what the term "ownership" really means. I think land can be owned. But I think ownership is semi-dependent upon labor and semi-dependent upon societal convention. Part of societal convention, however, is accepting the logic that that self-owned individuals are responsible for their labor and the products of it. I think it's pretty hard to deny this, unless you don't care when someone takes something from you. Land is only trickier because, who's to say when someone's farmhand has put more labor into creating and maintaining the land that the food was on? Can parks be owned? If I have tilled a tract of land, would it be unfair of me to require a contract to be written that does not transfer ownership of my land to a laborer which seeks to put more labor into than I for a compensation of less than the laborer produces? On the other hand, would it be unfair for anyone to come on to another person's land and farm to their own satisfaction?

It's fascinating stuff. Working from first principles such as self-ownership is really interesting, but this talking to the Earth stuff is boring.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

matthewmunari

there has to be an owner, otherwise we couldnt function in a democratic society..i get the point your making, but it kinda doesn't make sense to me.. if no one owned any land, then how could we build houses on spaces of property that were un-owned by anybody? there has to be an owner, or the whole system would come tumbling down on itself, what would we have to show for our hard spent energy? cash of course, and that cash can be used to purchase many things, land being the most profitable.... i wish it wasnt like that, but in our reality thats the way our forefathers set it up...we technically stole the land (the US) from the rightful owners (the 1st to set up an established community) the native americans, and unlawfully imprisoned some of them on false charges just so we would have an excuse to take from them what we wanted....All of us white people have roots somewhere not from here...we all have ancestors that immigrated here from one place or another..and being the majority, we kinda took over..then I am embarassed to admit that I am from the same race that transported people from another continent soley for the purpose of enslavement..the native americans couldn't be enslaved because they would fight back, and many died, for their cause....African-Americans were brought over for the purpose of enslavement, to work on land that was stolen from the rightful owners (we ignorantly named them Indians) so say that no one owns the land is a noble thought, but it is not what the economy says....

__________________
http://www.unsigned.com/reparation

Smaerd

man kind created "ownership" The land used to be free for any and all to use.

matthewmunari

right, i agree...

__________________
http://www.unsigned.com/reparation

matthewmunari

your kinda contradicting yourself..im not tryin to be a dick, just pointing it out

__________________
http://www.unsigned.com/reparation

snapshot

So any land that you might put your house on is free for me to use?

Man also created the idea that stealing is wrong. Does that mean that stealing isn't wrong, or that you believe there's no such thing as stealing?

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

matthewmunari

when its properly paid for, thats the caveat i forgot to mention....

__________________
http://www.unsigned.com/reparation

snapshot

I would agree, in that nothing is owned unless its labored for, which is ultimately how currency is established.

Someone farms land. Corn is grown. That corn can be traded for anything that someone else is willing to give up, so long as the amount of corn offered is worth more to the person than what s/he is giving up and vice versa for the person giving up the corn--everyone always trades up. It's how value is created.

Money, currency, is just a medium that a lot of people think is valuable, whether to themselves or to someone else. It could be corn or a promise note.

What I CERTAINLY do not agree with is putting fence posts around a piece of land and claiming it yours, or stealing from someone else. Those are illegitimate ways of acquiring property. I think most people will agree with that. What is very difficult, however, is not blaming those people who had nothing to do with the property they now possess that was stolen by their ancestors, but also not being forced to give up something to someone else who didn't labor for it.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

matthewmunari

i disagree, thats why you have wills..... you cannot blame someone who has been "willed" X number of $'s, or parcels of land, its the decision the of the deceased to handle how their earthly property/land is parceled out...if I am disowned by my father, and recieve nothing when he dies, thats his will, I respect that, and I'm just using myself as an easy example..I mean all of humanity...

__________________
http://www.unsigned.com/reparation

snapshot

What is it you exactly disagree with? because I don't disagree with the idea of wills. In my opinion, it's exactly the same thing as giving, only since you're dead, the piece of paper you wrote does the giving instead of the person.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

matthewmunari

oh...ok i thought you disagreed with the idea of wills...

__________________
http://www.unsigned.com/reparation

Pharm Girl

Oops..........now this starts a whole new discussion!

(I'm serious when I say that not everyone hears the inanimate when it speaks)

Mercury

I wonder how land feels about landscaping???

__________________