Subject:
|
Ownership (was: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Jul 2001 14:49:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1368 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > I don't believe in the notion of "finders-keepers."
>
> Hmm, since we've been playing with taking interpretations to extremes to
> see how they work out, a technique which I wholeheartedly endorse...
>
> - Can you justify your ownership of anything metal? The metal was
> "found".
> - Can you justify your ownership of anything plastic? The petroleum
> products used to make it were "found".
> - Can you justify eating anything? Even the vegetables you eat are
> derrived from something which at one point was "found".
> - Can you justify breathing? The air you breathe was "found".
I've been having a crisis of faith over the past several months and tried to
bring it up unsuccessfully once before, but this ties into it. To get to the
point, I'm having trouble justifying ownership. The entire notion of ownership
actually. This is only unsettling because ownership 'feels' so right.
Basically, I have demonstrated to myself that owning land is bogus and a rights
violating construct.
But I started this thinking that land was just a special class that removed it
from the normal set of goods. However, everything that we normally call a good
comes from the land. I can invest my time and energy converting mud to
functional stoneware crockery. So once I've done that, shouldn't I have some
extra right to the product? It seems like I should. But what about the
material that went into it? How are the 'rights' of those who are owed equal
participation in the land protected when I take part of that land and turn it
into something that I own?
One 'solution' would be to say that The People have a right to take part of my
excess wealth. You probably all know how much I like that. And that, in any
form, means that folks don't actually own (in the sense that they can do what
they want with it forever) stuff. Many of you might take this for granted
already. Is that so?
So this is where I've left myself dangling. If anyone out there knows at all
what I'm talking about from this rambling, and can either challenge part of
this, or point me in the direction that you go from here, I'd appreciate
hearing it.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Ownership
|
| (...) Really? I just thought it was just an extension of man's territorial nature (maybe no different than dogs pissing on trees to mark territory). (...) Yeah, at what point can it be called exploitation? I think there is such thing as collective (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
244 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
