-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Buying Land
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
Private ownership is useful.
Farming, commerce & manufacturing would be more difficult without it.
And I get to landscape.
Although I wish my niece had given me 20 years notice instead of 1
for holding her wedding ceremony here. I'd have done some things
differently. (Could use more room for the tents.)
Farming, commerce & manufacturing would be more difficult without it.
And I get to landscape.
Although I wish my niece had given me 20 years notice instead of 1
for holding her wedding ceremony here. I'd have done some things
differently. (Could use more room for the tents.)
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I don't have a problem with private ownership of land. Where things get tricky is when you consider who claims to own the land, and how far back in the chain of ownership can a fair price have been said to be paid to uncoerced sellers? Usually the last owner to have been unfairly dispossessed is more historically recent than is comfortable for most of us to think about.
The people?
You must not actually know any of them.
They're horrid, stupid, & wasteful.
And they plant non-native invasive species like garlic mustard!
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
So who gets to use what land for what improvements?
Private, of course...
even if the state should own the strategic infrastructures (highways, roads) and sites of public interest(archaeological zones, natural reserves).
We are a dying nation and the government is so desperate that it wants to give free land to families who decide to have a third child...u know...to push procreation...
even if the state should own the strategic infrastructures (highways, roads) and sites of public interest(archaeological zones, natural reserves).
I know, right?
We are a dying nation and the government is so desperate that it wants to give free land to families who decide to have a third child...u know...to push procreation...
I tend to favor private ownership, but there are good arguments on both sides of the issue. One thing I do believe, if there is private ownership, ownership should not confer absolute rights to do anything you want to do with the land. For instance, just because I own some land does not mean I have a right to turn my land into a nuclear waste dump that will be radioactive for a million years.
I dare not imagine how much land the RCC owns in Italy
I recommending importing babies for adoption.
It results in less over-population.
Anything other than "other" in the list of options you made is land that is "bought and sold." I agree with the sentiment that land should not be a commodity. Actually, anything that "you can't take with you" is only trivially significant. The good news, though, is that we can (usually) pass our transitory "wealth" to our children and let them pretend in its significance.
We should all note that land ownership is (in real estate parlance) "a bundle of rights".
It is never (in the modern world) an unlimited right to do anything upon the land.
Reasonable restrictions to protect rights & liberties of others will apply.
It is never (in the modern world) an unlimited right to do anything upon the land.
Reasonable restrictions to protect rights & liberties of others will apply.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
In principle, I disagree as ownership is a cornerstone of individuality, that puts a tiny wedge between the individual and tyranny. Owning property allows the individual of modest means to feel she/he/it belongs somewhere, has somewhere they can call their own, where they are not at the mercy of anyone else. (Allowing for the provisions given by @Revoltingest in #12.)
I have no real problem with a planned distribution with land allotted to specific ends, but private property must remain a component.
Amusing side question: For those of you are do not think land should be treated as a commodity, do you own your own land right now? Yes or No. (This is not a trick to call you a hypocrite.)
Now that's the real question,
'Babies should not be a commodity to be bought and sold.'
Well, the adoption process should be a carefully considered & administered one.
More of it will help us avoid a future wherein access to verdant natural spaces
become a scarce commodity affordable only by the uber wealthy..
well...it's a law which existed in the 30s....and now restored...
so u can understand the political context and the aims...
All concepts of ownership are human constructs, whether we're talking land or something else. I doubt if we would have these concepts in their current form if history had taken a different course.
The need for the concept of ownership seems directly related to both the shift to settlements and increasing population. When your species no longer bothers to roam around and balloons in numbers beyond ecologically sustainable levels, competition for basic needs increases. The solution to this carrying capacity problem was apparently to invent the construct of "ownership." In this fashion, resources a human needed for survival would be allocated to help manage conflicts based on something being "owned" by a specific human. If humans had stayed nomadic and not exceeded the carrying capacity of the environment, it is unlikely the concept of ownership would have evolved into what it is now. The idea of ownership seems to have gotten more complicated and convoluted the more humans ignore ecologically sustainable populations for themselves and concentrate evermore into urban centers. Few today question the wisdom of the concept of ownership, or think much about its origin.
The need for the concept of ownership seems directly related to both the shift to settlements and increasing population. When your species no longer bothers to roam around and balloons in numbers beyond ecologically sustainable levels, competition for basic needs increases. The solution to this carrying capacity problem was apparently to invent the construct of "ownership." In this fashion, resources a human needed for survival would be allocated to help manage conflicts based on something being "owned" by a specific human. If humans had stayed nomadic and not exceeded the carrying capacity of the environment, it is unlikely the concept of ownership would have evolved into what it is now. The idea of ownership seems to have gotten more complicated and convoluted the more humans ignore ecologically sustainable populations for themselves and concentrate evermore into urban centers. Few today question the wisdom of the concept of ownership, or think much about its origin.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I absolutely disagree. Ownership resolves conflict that would otherwise arise. However we meed to keep in mind that ownership has a purpose and when ownership is utilized to the detriment of that purpose then we should question whether it is beneficial to dissolve or protect the rights of an owner.
Basically I agree with what others have written here. There is a role for private land and publicly owned land.
Woberts
The Perfumed Seneschal
In a system where the land is owned communally? Well, the community would have to decide. Put it to a vote, or something like that.