|
You can't ever own land. To own the land you would have to have power over every last aspect of it.
You would have to know of the bugs crawling through it and their location at every moment. So your
right we as humans don't own the land. We sorta just sit on it and its our own egotisticalness that
lets us think that we can ever truly own it and our constitution that says we can kick people off
our borrowed land. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
If you have the military personell necessary to defend a piece of land, then you can make whatever
laws you want regarding ownership of small bits of that land. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Capitalism works socialism does not. History is testimony to this. The poor people in capitalist
societies are much better off than any others. Yes it's true they may get a smaller proportion of
the pie, but its a bigger pie they are eating from. The land is best worked under those who know how
to work the land, everybody benefits from this. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The problem of the socialistic ideal is that it hinges on either, a) the natural goodwill and
organizational skills of humanity or b) on a huge intrusive governmental machine in order to exist
in the practical world. Of those two choices one is pure fantasy and one is extremely undesirable,
at least to me. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I don't agree with the argument that if you don't work you die. It does not even take great wealth
to buy a house.
People went to America and staked their claim, made a living and raised a family. I can't see why it
is theft to own a home. It is a far better concept than renting a home. Hand all the money over to
someone else who owns the house you live in. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This is such a lovely little hippy concept that is completely ridiculous in the real world. I own
things as a reward for working. As does everyone else, including you. It isn't really worth
arguing with this level of daftness, you don't even believe it yourself. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whilst in principal, I think the idea of what you wrote has some merit, because it is undeniable
that capitalism creates the haves and the have nots, the reality is that it has value also.
Capitalism is what makes the world develop and progress. The key thing here is that the non
ownership of anything is heading down the path of communism, whereby nobody really owns much, the
state owns it all...is that how you see our lives would be better??? It also answers the other
comment posted about should the coal mining company do it for free if they can't own the coal, as in
the communist idealogy, the state would own the mine (therefore sell the coal) and the miners would
be paid by the state. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I assume this also applies to societal ownership of property. If the owner is the society, then
other societies don't have access to the goodies, either. By the way, what kind of stereo do you
own, I would like to come and take it since you don't believe in property ownership. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Are you suggesting that nobody should own anything? Your argument would have to apply to all
inanimates to make any sense; for instance coal is mined from the earth and sold, if the miner
doesn't own the coal how can he sell something he doesn't own in the first place? But people need
coal [only an example so don't go green on me], so the miner provides coal. Are you suggesting he
does it for free? |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
04 Jun 2008 11:58
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
