John,
Are we to believe that you own no property? You would never buy, nor accept ownership of any real estate? If one day, in spite of your efforts to remain untainted by land ownership, you came into possession of a couple of city blocks along Miracle Mile in Beverly Hills, you'd donate it to AIM out of the goodness of your heart. Lad, you're a saint.
For my part, I'll invest every nickle I can in property that will return the greatest profit at the least risk. Being poor is greatly overrated by some, but it's a real drag to be without decent shelter or a hot meal when you're hungry.
When my grandfather sold the ranch in Southern Arizona that my sisters and I associated with security, safety and well-being, he attached a condition that the property not be sold back to our family. My Grandfather was a wise man, he knew that ranching in the old ways was a losing proposition and so he saw to it that our sentimentality for the old place wouldn't over-ride our financial better angels. Those in the family who got good educations and went to live in urban areas have tended to do pretty well. Those who tended to remain attached to the land of our hearts, have little to show for it. The point is that the agricultural life is becoming ever more rare in the United States, and probably Canada. Most folks make their living out of wages, or business ownership of some kind. Real estate is still the largest investment for most people, but the real estate in question is almost always the family castle. Wealth, these days, is more often associated with having a good education and individual initiative than it has with the ownership of 20 sections of land.
Asherman,
You are an educated man so I don't see how, from an actual reading of my posts in this thread, you can conclude that I would not taint myself with property ownership.
John,
Going back and re-reading your last couple of posts leads me to believe that I probably did misread your meaning. I think what planted the seed was this, "The idea that land can be taken by force and legitimized over time strikes me is an example of the fruit of the poison tree." You had already questioned the "legitimacy" of acquiring ownership by the other means I had suggested, and it seemed to me you were saying that all land ownership rests upon force. Ergo, all current land ownership is illegitimate. If that is so and we want to remain consistent with the ideal, then one would have to give up all claims to property. A pretty Communistic sort of ideal. Obviously, I'm pretty conservative and extremely anti-communist.
On the reprise, I think you were probably not intending any value judgement on whether property ownership is either legitimate, or illegitimate. Idealists who argue that property ownership is nothing more than a form of theft and means of exploiting those without property tend to get my goat. Sorry, if I misunderstood your meaning. I guess this means that we will have to put off your canonization for a bit.
