4 ms·
Well many of the people displacing residents don't "own" the land either. They can just afford crazier rents. The distinction between whether someone is renting
by fluxic 9y ago
Well many of the people displacing residents don't "own" the land either. They can just afford crazier rents. The distinction between whether someone is renting or owning has little bearing on where someone considers "home".
See: entitlements people feel about going back to "homelands" in the Middle East, or to Europe after the war. These are not people that owned land, and yet we still feel morally responsible to help them return to their original homelands.
- RestlessMind 9y agoNo, I don't think it has much to do with morality. Its just that some peoples won the wars and hence could return to their homeland. Do you think Jews could have settled in Israel had they lost the fight in 1948? Or Germans would have been expelled from east of Oder had they won WW2? Even Hongkong had to be ceded back to China only after China became powerful enough to leave no other alternative. Do you think UK would have given back Hongkong if China was as weak as, say, Argentina (see: Falklands war)? Ultimately, land ownership (or its euphemisms like "homes" or "property rights") can only be backed by monopoly on violence, otherwise known as Governments, in that area.