Subject:
|
Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 Feb 2003 04:23:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1072 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > Part of the reason I like having my own 'place' is that I don't want
> > to have to listen to person X's music, or listen to their conversations.
> > I basically enjoy a degree of privacy.
>
> I agree, but I don't see why stewardship rather than ownership necessarily
> decreases your ability to enjoy privacy.
Hm. I guess I have to question how different is this stewardship you're
envisioning versus ownership? What does ownership entitle you to that
stewardship doesn't; given that in our current system, the government can
confiscate your land if it deems it necessary (albeit as is they'd need to
jump through legal hoops and have good reason). But assumedly in your
proposed system, the 'government' or 'society' would have some sort of say
over your stewardship and again only change your status/whatever if it had
just cause, as in our system. I guess I'm not quite sure I see exactly what
differences you're proposing.
> > And what I construe as an invasion of my privacy and/or destruction
> > of 'my' property might conflict with others definitions. And I doubt there
> > are rules to cover all potential situations well enough to be an effective
> > system for human beings in general.
>
> You are in effect saying that the only system that could work is the one we
> have. Is that what you really mean? If we have rules to cover "all potential
> situations" now, why couldn't we have them phrased differently? Or is there
> something about our ownership (which certainly isn't hard-line control) that
> implicitly handles the problems you're talking about? I mean we have property
> disputes mediated by courts all the time now, so why not under my plan?
I think a system similar to what we have is what will naturally develop--
though not *necessarily* with land. Sorta. The closest group of humans I can
think of in this respect would probably be either some nomadic group or
American Indians. However, American Indians had quasi-ideas about ownership;
but more as a tribe than an individual. Similarly with nomadic groups (as is
my understanding, I may be wrong), they typically would stick to routine
cycles, and would probably construe various points within this cycle as
property (certain oasises (sp??), etc). Though, again, there might be groups
I'm not thinking of. Regardless, I think the concept of ownership or control
over land is inherent in human nature. Whether you call it stewardship or
ownership I guess I'm not sure on. You'll have to define the a bit more
clearly, I think.
Actually, strike that-- someone else can pop in here, but I'm going on
vacation for a week :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
