@no1marauder saidWhen I use the word property, it is meant as Land.
Who doesn't own some property?
Items are possessions.
29 Jan 23
@no1marauder saidOwnership is obviously relative.
Question to AJ from the "Lipstick" thread which has wandered far afield.
EDIT: I just realized that was a bad pun.
We could be a sim, and some inter-galactic trailer trash kid owns us.
We could claim ownship of our back garden, but some alien could drop by and tell us we’re wrong.
We could plant a flag on Mars, but to any other life form in the universe it is completely meaningless.
We have property and borders, but even spiders and birds don’t recognise that ownership.
We say we own something. But ultimately we’re just vehicles for DNA to multiply. And cars don’t own anything either.
- Joined
- 20 May 16
- Moves
- 41753
29 Jan 23
@no1marauder saidSo you’re comparing or saying that someone owning their toothbrush, with this thought process will be willing and should have to morally want to let anyone use it? Along with me owning my home, all that went into that now not owning it and while I’m there I’m just using it until the next person does without doing anything to deserve that privilege of hard work and sacrifice? If this is a stupid comment please help me understand your point better, that’s all I’m doing.
Who doesn't own some property?
29 Jan 23
@mike69 saidYou share that toothbrush with all sorts of creatures.
So you’re comparing or saying that someone owning their toothbrush, with this thought process will be willing and should have to morally want to let anyone use it? Along with me owning my home, all that went into that now not owning it and while I’m there I’m just using it until the next person does without doing anything to deserve that privilege of hard work and sacrifice? If this is a stupid comment please help me understand your point better, that’s all I’m doing.
But, generally speaking, when discussing ownership, it’s not about toothbrushes, TV’s and kitchen appliances.
There’s nothing wrong with having a safe place to lodge. It’s the fact that you think it’s permanent when matters get fuzzy.
@booger saidThe real questions are:
When I use the word property, it is meant as Land.
Items are possessions.
How did we get from a reality where no one owned land to a situation where some do and some don't?
And is it morally justified that some own land that they cannot personally use but require others, who have been dispossessed of their liberty to go where they please and hunt and gather, to work for them?
29 Jan 23
@mike69 saidActually, I'm saying the opposite.
So you’re comparing or saying that someone owning their toothbrush, with this thought process will be willing and should have to morally want to let anyone use it? Along with me owning my home, all that went into that now not owning it and while I’m there I’m just using it until the next person does without doing anything to deserve that privilege of hard work and sacrifice? If this is a stupid comment please help me understand your point better, that’s all I’m doing.
Your personal property is yours and you may justifiably exclude others from using it.
It is only when someone claims property that they cannot personally use but require others to work on it for their benefit that the moral issue comes into play.
- Joined
- 20 May 16
- Moves
- 41753
29 Jan 23
@no1marauder saidThank you, so which property are you comparing this to that everyone owns. Would you mind also helping me one more time by answering the questions I asked, they were what I was actually missing the point you were making on.
Actually, I'm saying the opposite.
Your personal property is yours and you may justifiably exclude others from using it.
It is only when someone claims property that they cannot personally use but require others to work on it for their benefit that the moral issue comes into play.
29 Jan 23
@mott-the-hoople saidNeither here nor there. As per usual.
this thread explains why liberals think a man can become a woman…pure stupidity.
nature has laws…only the strongest survive
Get back in your closet.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
29 Jan 23
@shavixmir saiddo you not have some masturbating to do or something?
Neither here nor there. As per usual.
Get back in your closet.
29 Jan 23
@mott-the-hoople saidIf that were true, Mankind would have died out long ago - we're hardly the "strongest" animal.
this thread explains why liberals think a man can become a woman…pure stupidity.
nature has laws…only the strongest survive
29 Jan 23
@no1marauder saidI don't know the tomes of UN rules, to gab about who can do what, here in 2023. But I would like this discussion, if you will not once again bring up rights in the Stone Age. Or in the 13th century in Scotland when identifying parcels and ownership became formal and legal.
Why would "planting a flag" imply exclusive use of the field?
Why would an "internationally recognized agreement" be binding on everyone including those who are not parties to it?
Obviously, this is a philosophical question, not merely a legal one.
To your question, there are no rights to just take Mars if you get there first. No rights (excepting UN or whatever which speak to it). So, you just take it, rights being irrelevant.
So, my answer? Let us revert back to the survival of the fittest. The cave man claimed his camp fire group and ground, and held it through strength. He and his tribe were the strongest. This process has gone on ever since it began. So, if some country arrives on Mars, and then maybe another a little later, whomever is the 'fittest' will prevail, and through strength (building its military, etc) will end up developing this planet in its name. They would own it.
Edit: No country is bound to "an internationally recognized' agreement without having acquiesced to its terms and signed on the dotted line. This is of course subject to existing agreements which automatically include such acquiescence.