Is private property possible or just an illusion.

thethinkfactory wrote:

We seem to be stuck on the legal concept of whether land ownership is possible.

I am asking - if any man is endowed with the metaphysical means to own property.

The only evidence I have seen in this 6 page thread to the otherwise is 'don't be silly - ofcourse we can own property'.

TTF

Thanks for the reminder, I'd forgotten that the beginning post touched on, not just land, but at ideas and inventions.

How long should a copyright last? I'm beginning to think that's there no end in sight to the copyrights of films. I've run into an interesting legal restriction with the many owners of public performance rights. There is a company that purchased the ownership rights to license films, but did so in the then current but now nearly obsolete laserdisk format. They don't have the rights to all those in the DVD format. How did they get themselves into such a mess?

There was a rumor... A silly urban myth?... that Bill Gates had agents who purchased near universal rights to the digital versions of many art masterpieces from museums who were eager for money and naive about the digital vision. That idea was the stuff of many discussions -- is it fair or was it like selling Manhattan for a pittance?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

They settled out of court.

spendius.

spendius wrote:

Piffka-
Surely private property is an evolutionary principle.Presumably the idea is to place resources into the hands of those who make best use of them.
Best being defined by those in power.
Democracies exert their unexampled power through technology and it is fair to assume that the principle of private property is a key factor.

I think we agree that what we call "private ownership" is a limited right, granted by states who choose to be the caretakers... including determining what is the highest and best use.

Nonetheless, I believe that the ownership we have is more illusion than real. It's main benefit is that it allows the masses to contribute mightily to interest-bearing accounts.

spendius wrote:

This forum is a small piece of private property which is unlikely to be legal in any non-democratic system.Members,by their very existence,prove that private property is no illusion.You might find it worthwhile to peruse Origin of Species.Please don't slide down the "do we exist" escape route.

I post, therefore we are.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Interesting anthropological question, Piffka. What are the differences in sensibilities regarding property between a rent-paying or residence-owning urbanite and a ruralite who owns land that has been in his family for generations? They must be profound. For one thing, the urbanite merely resides in his house or condo while the ruralite lives both on and off the land he owns.

I have seen the kinship some people feel to an expanse of property that belongs or seems to belong to you, rather than the different sort of relationship one feels in an expanse of established parkland in the city.

I feel personally responsible for the plants & animals that call the place home, to the people who live here, to the neighbors around, and to the waterfront &... with that, the entire sphere that is salt water. Most ruralites feel like this, I think, whether they're connected to salt-water, a lake or river, a national forest, mountains, desert or farmlands.

Maybe an urbanite has a greater sense of identification with a specific city?

0 Replies

That's right.

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

What do you say to the Palestinians who still have deeds to their property, JoeofChicago, the ones who didn't sell their land? Are they borrowers, squatters, owners?

I have no clue. Where are they now?

Piffka wrote:

I have no idea why you don't think there are caretakers. That shows, to me, no respect or understanding of land. It makes me believe you have spent your entire life in the city.

Whether I have spent my entire life in the city, suburbs, country, or in mid-air, it doesn't make any difference. A renter can understand the concept of "property" just as easily as a human can understand the concept of unassisted flight.

And it's not that I don't think there are "caretakers" of property, it's that I don't think that gives us any insight into what "property" is. It is, if anything, a psychological concept relevant to the nature of some property owners, not a philosophical concept relevant to the nature of property.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

I am asking - if any man is endowed with the metaphysical means to own property.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. What does it mean to have "the metaphysical means to own property?"

thethinkfactory wrote:

With all the restriction our nature puts on our own bodies and our property it appears at the least that our concept of ownership needs to be redefined. Borowing - because it is finite and restricted - seems a better term.

How can "borrowing" be a better term when you reject "ownership?" How can one borrow that which no one owns?

0 Replies

It seems to me that we are distinguishing between absolute ownership--as if it were a natural advantage like having wings for "unassisted flight"--and culturally-defined rights and duties with respect to some "property." In the latter, which is the reality, land is controlled ("owned") by a nation of people who formulate rules (laws) defining the conditions under which an individual can have exclusive use of areas of land and/or the right to treat it as a commercial commodity. This is ownership, and it is a social construction, analogous to assisted flight.

0 Replies

JLN-- I agree and the comparison to assisted flight is great.

I ran into this, TTF, while a2k was offline and I was doing some reading. about the old Asian concepts of ownership, it's an interesting bit about early Buddhist beliefs. This is from the Vinaya, the earliest teachings written after the Buddha died, as remembered by his friend, Ananada. There seemed to be an understanding that during one's lifetime something could "belong" to even a monk and no one else... or property could be shared.

Quote:

6.A Bhikkhu who, begging (the materials) together, is having a hut put up for his own use, to belong to no one (else), must have it made of due measurement. And herein this is the measurement--in length twelve spans according to the accepted span, in breadth seven spans (measured) inside.

The Bhikkhus must be brought to the place to approve the site; and those Bhikkhus shall approve a site free from danger (of killing bugs, etc.), and with an open space around it (so that you don't step on bugs, etc.). If a Bhikku shall, at his own request, have a hut put up on a dangerous site, without the open space around it, or shall not bring the Bhikkus to approve the site, or shall exceed the (due) measure--that is a Samghâdisesa.

7. A Bhikkhu who is having a large residence made for his own use, and to belong (also) to others, shall bring the Bhikkhus to the place to approve the site; and those Bhikkhus shall approve a site free from danger, and with an open space around it. If a Bhikkhu shall have a large residence made on a dangerous site....

And here's a portion of the "Mahamangala Sutta" or Discourse on Supreme Happiness:

Quote:

Many deities and humans, yearning after good, have pondered on Blessings. Pray, tell me the Supreme Blessings.

[...] To reside in a suitable locality, ....
This is the Supreme Blessing.

0 Replies

Is private property possible or just an illusion.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know