Ethics and Land Ownership

[infernocanuck]

I have always pondered the idea of land ownership before, but the recent thread on Zionism compels me to ask a few questions to the greater community.

When it comes to land ownership, there are a few questions:

Can human beings claim to own something that they did not create? I can claim that a work of art is mine, for I made it. But human beings have no involvement in creating the earth (No matter what the process. This, I think may be something that evolutionists, creationists, and everyone in between can agree upon!)

What is the function, the ultimate purpose, for owning land? (And really, at large, the creation of countries and regions). Is it to divide in groups and out groups? Is it to provide order? Does the function lie in economics? Does it manifest from our ideas of individuality and privacy, perhaps?

I, of course, have my opinions and musings, but I'm more curious what you all think about it.

[Sidmen]

The owning of land comes from the invention of agriculture, where one barbarian wanted to keep the food he grew himself for himself. Then you throw in a community, they want to keep the lands that they worked for themselves, with the rights to trade land decided by the people involved.

As time went on, less good land was available for the farmers, so the communities that the farmers belonged to either stole land, or fought wars over it.

[Thanatos]

You own it by working on the land to make your crops, your home, your etc.

All the stuff with the state came later.

[Farnan]

You own it by working on the land to make your crops, your home, your etc.

All the stuff with the state came later.

You've been reading Locke?

[Thanatos]

You've been reading Locke?

What, something wrong?

[Farnan]

Naa, I've just noticed what your philosophy is from, I like Locke.

[kev-o]

Same here

[Chaigidel]

basically humans are animals (no offense of course) and our need to define territory I think can be traced to the basic nature of other social mammals.

other than that, it feels good to say this is my land; and you take care of it and you live on it; I think its acceptable; but in moderation obviously-- no one man and his family could ever have a use for say 1 million acres(perhaps a mega-farming operation but you see the difference thats not one man and his family)

I think everyone has a need to own land; to possess the soil they live upon; this is why we pay with sweat, blood and tears so the saying goes.

[Amorphos]

as an anarchist i have often pondered this one too. there are vast tracts of land in England that belong to private individuals, the church universities etc. now i can understand that people own land because they work on it often for successive generations, but how much land can one own before you are stealing from another?

similarly you see rich dudes, celebrities etc, who own their own lakes and countryside or a part of the coast - and it is the best parts! shouldnt we all have the right to see and experience nice parts of this planet? in many areas the best parts are all walled off and only accessible to the owners and whom they choose to see it.


viva la revolution

[Thanatos]

as an anarchist i have often pondered this one too. there are vast tracts of land in England that belong to private individuals, the church universities etc. now i can understand that people own land because they work on it often for successive generations, but how much land can one own before you are stealing from another?

similarly you see rich dudes, celebrities etc, who own their own lakes and countryside or a part of the coast - and it is the best parts! shouldnt we all have the right to see and experience nice parts of this planet? in many areas the best parts are all walled off and only accessible to the owners and whom they choose to see it.


viva la revolution

Unfortunately, things like this need to be judged on an individual basis. Is it really the rich man's fault if he's rich?

It also works the same if you're poor. You wouldn't want everybody coming to YOUR house all the time to see something, would you?

[Blau&Gruen]

Landownership is not an ethical but a legal question and laws are made by the law-maker. If you want to discuss late 19th and early 20th century land-acquisitions by zionist organiziations, you have to consider the landsale laws of the Ottoman Empire and those of the British Mandat Period. One of our turkish bord-members might be able to explain us what the procedure were and under which conditions the early zionist cooperatives were allowed to be founded. You have to understand that the ottoman administration tried to develop the levantine area and settled therefore various ethnic communities there. The building of the rail road between the Holy Cities in the Arabian Peninsula and Anatolia was part of that policy.

[Amorphos]

thanatos hi

Unfortunately, things like this need to be judged on an individual basis.

i would say on a universal basis i.e. if you divided things up so each had an equal share equally like with some forms of communism, then this would be as restrictive. thus we need a balance between what is fair for all, where for example it is better if instead of each individual owning a share of the land they could buy cheap food from people who grow en`mass.

Is it really the rich man’s fault if he’s rich?

no, nor a poor mans fault if poor. it is however the rich mans fault if he has the audacity to think he can have a beautiful part of this tiny planet to himself, this has to be selfish surely.

You wouldn’t want everybody coming to YOUR house all the time to see something, would you?

ha, like loads of westerners holidaying in poor 3rd world countries and saying ‘how quant’ lols. yes i get your point, you could say owning a nice lake stops people from ruining it! if true however then you should stop people from going anywhere of worth?

[Thanatos]

1) Ah, but is not everyone selfish?

2) What exactly are you proposing, then?

[Amorphos]

sure not everyone are selfish, but if they take for themselves then they are.

What exactly are you proposing, then?

hmmm big question! it is all a bit after the fact as the land is already been taken, most often wrongly. you could say that for example, everyone has a right to a given amount of land rather than an equal share. then we could all build houses in a climate where they are out of financial reach for many. may help homelessness.

ideally we would all have enough land to live off of, but thats an ideal.


secondly that any land may be utilised given that damage is not caused to it, this is something ramblers [country walkers] have been fighting for. i used to live next to a beautiful spot along the kennet river which was owned by the fishing industry. i used to take my girlfriend for walks along it which was very romantic, and people would come along and say what you doing walking here etc.

[Thanatos]

So...?

[Amorphos]

so...
i havent thought about this in years but heres a few ideas:

1. the law should step in and make the land free again - in a given context. for instance; no one should be able to own beauty spots without giving public access.

2. all land should not be classified as owned!

3. no one should be homeless as they have had the land stolen from under their feet, and hence should be compensated in some way.

if the land is not owned they neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis have a right to it! the Israelis should take down their walls and both should live amongst each other.

[Kiki52]

You should hear what Chaigidel has to say about this. Humanity is permanently cursed to be very greedy and evil, we have it in our DNA. The only way I think what you think Quetzalcoatl would work, is if we become GOD. The sad thing is that many people like the way things our now, and we never learn. That will lead to our own destruction.

so...
i havent thought about this in years but heres a few ideas:

1. the law should step in and make the land free again - in a given context. for instance; no one should be able to own beauty spots without giving public access.

2. all land should not be classified as owned!

3. no one should be homeless as they have had the land stolen from under their feet, and hence should be compensated in some way.

if the land is not owned they neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis have a right to it! the Israelis should take down their walls and both should live amongst each other.

[Amorphos]

kiki

i don’t think we are all greedy and evil or even that evil exists, i think we want stuff and there is nothing wrong with that. when we gain to anothers detriment it becomes somewhat more questionable, if we own a part of a beach and say the rest of the world cannot go there this is an extreme example.

in my view ideals are often as extreme as that which the wish to replace, most problems arise from extremes as noted above. it is the same in israel, we don’t even have to consider two owners of our lands, i cannot imagine what that would be like. the term ‘share’ come to mind in resolving the issue, but none are willing to do that. it really is unresolvable because it is entwined in the duality of life.

perhaps this is why in mesopotamian myth the nomadic and hunter gatherer lifestyle was considered pure and was replaced by evil ~ civilisation.

[Kiki52]

perhaps this is why in mesopotamian myth the nomadic and hunter gatherer lifestyle was considered pure and was replaced by evil ~ civilisation.

Where did you hear this? This is like many Native American tribes were like that. I didn't know the Beduoin were like that. I wonder if Islam is compatible with a nomadic lifestyle, I know that a lot of Beduoin camel riders in the Sinai desert are Muslim, but now I am not sure if even they have concepts of "evil ~ civilization".

Did these nomadic groups have concepts of ownership of land or was all land free-territory so long as you don't destroy it?

I think it would be great if humanity could turn back to a Native American/Beduoin type roaming people. No need for taxes, no need for technology, no need for war, no need for identification of any sort. We need no companies, no schools, no stores, etc. but the problem is that most people don't want that. Most people on this earth will die if they cannot have those things I just listed.

I think if we ever go back to the old type of nomadic and hunter gatherer, it will only come after a major disaster/war on this earth has killed 99% or so of humanity and teaches us so. I personally think that super disaster/war will come to pass in our lifetime that but the aftermath is variable. It could lead humanity to go back that type of lifestyle living at peace with the earth etc or it could be horrible where a certain group of people would oppressively rule and exterminate all others then rule the whole earth in the glory of selfishness forever and ever.

Most people today won't like it if we lost all our knowledge, technology, culture, medicine etc.

What do you think Quetzalcoatl?

[Segestan]

Disregarding the economic requirements of establishing and maintaining 'Ownership' : its My Right, as a temporal member of My world, to Own a part of My World as it is every other human being on this planet. Landownership is founded in Individuality. The foundation of humanity is not brotherhood but rather Individuality that gathers into a fraternal condition. If someone else says they don't want or need ownership I will assume You're rights belong to me.. it's that simple.