tncaver wrote:Is land ownership really that difficult of a concept?
It is. For me anyway, I aint that bright.
Moderator: Moderators
tncaver wrote:Is land ownership really that difficult of a concept?
Ernie Coffman wrote:You're not trying to change the subject are you
Ernie Coffman wrote: But, if you don't understand land ownership, as you wrote, how about the clothes on your back?
GroundquestMSA wrote:Ernie Coffman wrote:You're not trying to change the subject are you
No, I was trying to spare the audience.Ernie Coffman wrote: But, if you don't understand land ownership, as you wrote, how about the clothes on your back?
I may not be a very smart man, but I do know what ownership is. I unashamedly wear and own clothes. That isn't me in the photo. I can't grow even that junky little bit of beard. I am an NSS member. I am not NSS, whatever that means. I do not concern myself with the "philosophy of the NSS," if such a thing exists. I am just here to make discussion. That cleared up...you asked for it:
Property ownership cannot be compared to the utilization of basic tools and goods like clothing and cars. Claiming rights to a piece of land makes sense only as long as the owner intends to enter into a mutually beneficial relationship with that land, to know it and care for it, to allow it to care for him. This relationship is not selfish or possessive, though it may call for active protection of the land against a threat to its health, and the owner should be in a position to know what threatens his land and how to react to these dangers appropriately. In real life, these sorts of owners barely exist. The modern landowner holds title to a number of acres by virtue of amount of money paid. He neither knows or cares for his land, has no intention or means to protect it, and is interested only in control or monetary return. This sort of land ownership is an absolute joke, made even more absurd by its transience. A hillside may have ten "owners" in a hundred years, but none of them were really owners were they? The idea that we can trade money for absolute power over the earth is an insult to the earth. And it is damaging. And it is untrue. Therefore, while I respect the idea of personal privacy, the idea of personal reward for hard work, and the idea of responsible land use by its residents and caretakers, I find the idea of land ownership, as practiced in our society, impossible to reconcile with any proper "unalienable rights" or with the concept of right behavior. That is why I do not consider a deed to land an automatic qualification for making decisions for that land.
caver.adam wrote:But the question I'm left asking is: If the owner gates a cave with a gate that is designed not to hurt the native life of the cave, is it better to provide blanket protection for your land than to let anyone on it unsupervised? Especially if the owner doesn't know much about how to preserve it?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users