FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Who is OnlineWho is Online   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  • Welcome
  • Guest

  • Main Menu
  • Sticky Articles
  • Open Support Tickets
who is the owner?
Page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Logic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Radagast



Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 15



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:53 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

kafir forever wrote:
I know that borders, historical or otherwise, are problematic, and that governments intervene.  My point is, that unless you have a theoretical starting point grounded in fundamental principals (morals), which involves the proper definition of how property titles are acquried and transferred, you have no foundation upon which to base any argument for property ownership other than brute force.

As you probably know by now, I am not politically correct, and I believe in calling a spade a spade.  If the property is owned by a thug who stole if from another thug, who stole it from a legimate property owner, then just admit it.  As far as I am concerned, government consists of thugs just as criminal gangs consist of thugs.  It is just that government claims to have a legitimate monoply on thuggery,

I'm all for some moral principle for allocation of land. Unfortunately, I fail to see how land titles are moral in the first place. The morality of "owning" one's land because one ancestor dispossess someone else in some ancient history? For example, in America, South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand: most of the land titles are passed on from people who dispossessed others. And as recently as 2 or 3 hundred years ago.

Why do the Turks now legitimately own their land around the Bosporus? A few hundred years ago, their ancestors came from a place in central Asia, far removed from any waters. And why are the modern Macedonians Slavic rather than Greek as they were in Alexander's time (The Slavs displaced Greeks in Macedonia back in the 5th or 6th century AD)?

It really depends on which period of history you draw on to determine who actually possessed what. There is no line fixed in stone. And hence, border disputes will continue to plague us until humans are extinct.

In my view, it is not so much about individuals owning land or holding title to land, but whether the Jews are entitled to their little piece of earth. And my answer to that would be yes... regardless of whether one bases it on some ancient religious scripture which I don't believe in in the first place. Those who said that God gave them this-or-that, must have their heads examined. But that is to be expected of an atheist.



Rgds
R
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Radagast wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
I know that borders, historical or otherwise, are problematic, and that governments intervene.  My point is, that unless you have a theoretical starting point grounded in fundamental principals (morals), which involves the proper definition of how property titles are acquried and transferred, you have no foundation upon which to base any argument for property ownership other than brute force.

As you probably know by now, I am not politically correct, and I believe in calling a spade a spade.  If the property is owned by a thug who stole if from another thug, who stole it from a legimate property owner, then just admit it.  As far as I am concerned, government consists of thugs just as criminal gangs consist of thugs.  It is just that government claims to have a legitimate monoply on thuggery,

I'm all for some moral principle for allocation of land. Unfortunately, I fail to see how land titles are moral in the first place. The morality of "owning" one's land because one ancestor dispossess someone else in some ancient history? For example, in America, South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand: most of the land titles are passed on from people who dispossessed others. And as recently as 2 or 3 hundred years ago.

Why do the Turks now legitimately own their land around the Bosporus? A few hundred years ago, their ancestors came from a place in central Asia, far removed from any waters. And why are the modern Macedonians Slavic rather than Greek as they were in Alexander's time (The Slavs displaced Greeks in Macedonia back in the 5th or 6th century AD)?

It really depends on which period of history you draw on to determine who actually possessed what. There is no line fixed in stone. And hence, border disputes will continue to plague us until humans are extinct.

In my view, it is not so much about individuals owning land or holding title to land, but whether the Jews are entitled to their little piece of earth. And my answer to that would be yes... regardless of whether one bases it on some ancient religious scripture which I don't believe in in the first place. Those who said that God gave them this-or-that, must have their heads examined. But that is to be expected of an atheist.



Rgds
R


Rad, with all due respect, I think you have totally missed my point.  I am not arguing/debating anything at all about the current state of the world.  I am saying that once a proper/moral title to property (I don't give a damn whether it is real estate or personal property) is established, there cannot be "title"/right transfer whenever force/fraud is involved.  The only legitimate exception I can entertain as of now, involves the element of force.  If entity A initiates an act of aggression against entity B with the purpose of depriving entity B of its legetimate property rights, then entity B is entitled to defend itself, and if in the process, captures property rights held by entity A, then A forfeits such rights.

The practical realities of establishing this chain throughout world history is NOT the subject of my thread.  Only the moral principle of property rights and their proper transfer from owner A to owner B is the subject I am interested in.

Are you even interested in that discussion?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Radagast



Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 15



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kafir forever wrote:
Rad, with all due respect, I think you have totally missed my point.  I am not arguing/debating anything at all about the current state of the world.  I am saying that once a proper/moral title to property (I don't give a damn whether it is real estate or personal property) is established, there cannot be "title"/right transfer whenever force/fraud is involved.  The only legitimate exception I can entertain as of now, involves the element of force.  If entity A initiates an act of aggression against entity B with the purpose of depriving entity B of its legetimate property rights, then entity B is entitled to defend itself, and if in the process, captures property rights held by entity A, then A forfeits such rights.

The practical realities of establishing this chain throughout world history is NOT the subject of my thread.  Only the moral principle of property rights and their proper transfer from owner A to owner B is the subject I am interested in.

Are you even interested in that discussion?

Hi KF,

I'm just arguing that perpetual title to land is an immoral concept. I base it on the fact that land itself isn't an asset that has been built or made. It is usually something that someone "found" or more likely someone kicked someone else off from, and then that piece of earth is passed from one generation to another in perpetuity. Granted that the original inhabitants spent some effort in rehabilitating that land for human purposes, but to say that the earth itself is "owned" in perpetuity because of that act is immoral. The earth is not made for any one family.

Your argument of property rights transfer from one generation to the next is built on the premise that someone owns land in perpetuity. I do not think we should think of "owning" land but are the custodians for land for an age.

Perpetuity is a very very long time....


Rgds
R
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rad,

Thanks for the clarification in what you are thinking, even though we do not agree on the concept of land ownership. Very Happy

I am very John Locke on this while you are not, and that's fine with me.

As for "in pertuity," yes it is a long time, but not infinite.  I guess when the sun goes red giant, the concept of land ownership on Earth will be null and void. Laughing

Later,
KF
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Radagast



Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 15



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kafir forever wrote:
Rad,

Thanks for the clarification in what you are thinking, even though we do not agree on the concept of land ownership. Very Happy

It may be one of those things that depend on one's viewpoint. It is also part of the difficulties in establishing human concepts on the natural world. There may be no definitive answer.

KF wrote:
I am very John Locke on this while you are not, and that's fine with me.

I'm not totally against Locke, but in the issue of real property rights I have some difficulty in agreeing with him. The premises for his argument are based on God. Therefore, his argument already started on a weak footing in my view.

Actually, the Jewish claim to Israel does not quite fit Locke's definition, since it is not based on the exertion of labor (in clearing the land) but on some claims that the land is a gift from God. It was not like that part of the world was devoid of people when the Israelites "found" it.

Having said that, the Lockean principles appear to work quite well for things like copyright and other physical objects.


Rgds
R


Last edited by Radagast on Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Radagast wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Rad,

Thanks for the clarification in what you are thinking, even though we do not agree on the concept of land ownership. Very Happy

It may be one of those things that depend on one's viewpoint. It is also part of the difficulties in establishing human concepts on the natural world. There may be no definitive answer.


Agreed.

Quote:
KF wrote:
I am very John Locke on this while you are not, and that's fine with me.

I'm not totally against Locke, but in the issue of real property rights I have some difficulty in agreeing with him. The premises for his argument are based on God. Therefore, his argument already started on a weak footing in my view.


I ignore the God part in favor of the first use and added labor concepts.

Quote:
Actually, the Jewish claim to Israel does not quite fit Locke's definition, since it is not based on the exertion of labor (in clearing the land) but on some claims that the land is a gift from God. It was not like that part of the world was devoid of people when the Israelites "found" it.


Rgds
R


I know it doesn't, and I agree with you.  The Jews killed and conquered the Caaninites, but who did the Caaniites kill and conquer, etc., etc., ...

But under any circumstances, the Arab Muslims have no more of a legitimate claim than the Jews.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Logic All times are GMT + 11 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3
 
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum