Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a source of huge conflict and debate throughout history. Some examples: Did the Native Americans have rightful ownership of western North America simply because they were there first? It would be a very different world today if the US allowed the Native Americans to keep all the land they claimed.
Ask yourself this, what were the legal concepts of property rights that the colonist held for themselves. Did they recognize the right of their land being seized due to the perception of others who might have believed that the land was not being properly utilized? Did not the earliest colonist in North America purchase land from native inhabitants and in so doing expressly recognized their property rights?
Quote:
Many millions of future humans would be denied the more effective land use that the US constructed. Would not allowing the Native Americans sovereignty to this land be a crime against all the immigrants who would be denied the better life of America.
Surely you jest? A crime against immigrants? I'd love to watch that discussion unfold on the immigration form.
Quote:
Same situation with Israel and Palestinians: the Palestinians were there first (although that's debated), but Israel has made much a more effective use of the land.
Again, assuming the argument is true, effectiveness by whose standards, certainly not the those displaced from the homes and places of business. For several hundred years we have develop a body of national and international jurisprudence establish not only property rights but methods for adjudicating conflicts when they arise. This has led to significant reductions in conflicts between people and nations. Are we to simply kick those laws, principles and ethics to the curb in favor of some arbitrary allowance for others to assert ownership based upon some less than objective criteria? I think not.
Quote:
And this can be extrapolated to Africa. Does the fact that those people have lived there forever give them rightful ownership to the most bountiful continent despite them using it in an atrocious manner?
Excuse me? But who decimated thousand year old African cultures that had found ways to live in harmony with the very abundance that you refer to. What was the extinction rate of natural flora and fauna before the property improvers moved in? Please be real.
All I am trying to say on this thread is that I don't believe land is first come first serve. Just because someones ancestors got to some section of the globe first and claimed it as their own does not mean that their descendents have eternal rights to that area.
Take Russia as another example. Just because Ivan the Terrible claimed all of Northern Asia is Russia's is not justification enough that Russia has rightful ownership to that area, even if no one was currently living their at the time. According to my opinion, Russia must make the best use of that land compared to all others who want the land or who claim it in order to legitimately have claim to that area.
Another example, Portugal and Spain the America's for themselves. So, in the 1700's and 1800's, Florida and the Southwest should belong to the US instead of Spain as the US used the land better than the Spanish did.
Also I am not advocating colonialism, which means ownership of the native people as well as the land.
Which all boils down to might makes right. Does it? Or does it not?
You hit the nail right on the head. I would say that this paradigm has been inplace since the first tribe of cave men stormed into another tribes cave and drove them away because they had bigger and better clubs.
Nothing has changed if someone or some entity wants the land you are occupying they will take it at the end of a gun, club, RPG, tank, etc.
All I am trying to say on this thread is that I don't believe land is first come first serve. Just because someones ancestors got to some section of the globe first and claimed it as their own does not mean that their descendents have eternal rights to that area.
Take Russia as another example. Just because Ivan the Terrible claimed all of Northern Asia is Russia's is not justification enough that Russia has rightful ownership to that area, even if no one was currently living their at the time. According to my opinion, Russia must make the best use of that land compared to all others who want the land or who claim it in order to legitimately have claim to that area.
Another example, Portugal and Spain the America's for themselves. So, in the 1700's and 1800's, Florida and the Southwest should belong to the US instead of Spain as the US used the land better than the Spanish did.
Also I am not advocating colonialism, which means ownership of the native people as well as the land.
Well if Spain wants Florida back they certainly could mobilize there armed forces and try but I don't think it would turn out well for them.
When it comes to land, Might make owners, right or wrong. You can claim the moon if you want it but untill you can defend it, you don't own nothing.
Well if Spain wants Florida back they certainly could mobilize there armed forces and try but I don't think it would turn out well for them.
When it comes to land, Might make owners, right or wrong. You can claim the moon if you want it but untill you can defend it, you don't own nothing.
bill
This is how it sometimes is in real life, but ideally even countries with big armies, like Russia, who do not use their land well should not have it.
This is how it sometimes is in real life, but ideally even countries with big armies, like Russia, who do not use their land well should not have it.
Please feel free to raise an Army and attempt to take it from them, once again I don't think it will turn out well for you. Or you could petition the Russians telling them that you don't think they are using there land holdings appropriately and they should hand them over to some other group for proper use
Might makes ownership is not how it works sometimes, it's how it works period.
It would be a very different world today if the US allowed the Native Americans to keep all the land they claimed. Many millions of future humans would be denied the more effective land use that the US constructed. Would not allowing the Native Americans sovereignty to this land be a crime against all the immigrants who would be denied the better life of America.
I say that although displacing the current inhabitants of a piece of land is a crime, it is a greater crime for others who can use the land better and more effectively to be denied this land simply because someone else got there first.
So can we assume that it would be acceptable to you for an elderly couple living in a big home on an inherited few acres the can no longer maintain to be evicted to make way for a large Mexican immigrant extended family who plan to farm?
Are you willing to hand over your home to a family that I deem will use it better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
All I am trying to say on this thread is that I don't believe land is first come first serve. Just because someones ancestors got to some section of the globe first and claimed it as their own does not mean that their descendents have eternal rights to that area.
It is a ridiculous and untenable argument that the author can neither coherently explain or justify. Either one believes in the principle or private ownership and the right of inheritance or one doesn't. Even in spite of America's usurpation of native lands we still acknowledged a degraded adherence to the principle of perpetual ownership not based upon land use but property and right of inheritance.
The fact that in the history of human ethics the principles of ownership and inheritance that have existed at least as far back as the Neolithic era were violated by the wars of greed and imperial expansion hardly justifies such violations of human ethics in this era. If there is anything to gleaned from the imperial wars of conquest during the 20th century, WW2 being the exemplar is that the authors opinion, which doesn't differ from Hitler's conception of lebensraum in the least bit - has no place in a modern global society.
It is a ridiculous and untenable argument that the author can neither coherently explain or justify. Either one believes in the principle or private ownership and the right of inheritance or one doesn't. Even in spite of America's usurpation of native lands we still acknowledged a degraded adherence to the principle of perpetual ownership not based upon land use but property and right of inheritance.
The fact that in the history of human ethics the principles of ownership and inheritance that have existed at least as far back as the Neolithic era were violated by the wars of greed and imperial expansion hardly justifies such violations of human ethics in this era. If there is anything to gleaned from the imperial wars of conquest during the 20th century, WW2 being the exemplar is that the authors opinion, which doesn't differ from Hitler's conception of lebensraum in the least bit - has no place in a modern global society.
Take a look at this from another angle. No one has ever owned land; land ownership is simply a rent on that land for exclusive rights from the rest of the world population. Adam Smith explained how this flawed thinking in land ownership (that land ownership is absolute, inheritable, and never to be taken away) lead to feudalism in Europe. He stated that for profit to be made, their must be three things: land, labor, and capital. So, for those who have invested labor, they deserve their share of profit; for those who have invested capital, they deserve their share. But for those who "own" the land, they have invested nothing. They have either inherited the land or bought it cheaply before it could be developed. As a result, they get free profit with no investment or risk. This is how the nobles and kings in Europe were allowed to gain the wealth they did. To guard against the free rider syndrome of land ownership, a progressive property tax must be in place to ensure that those who rent the land pay their rent.
As for nations, the issue gets a little sticker, hence the reason of this post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
