4 ms·
I find these property rights that go back centuries a bit dubious. How was the property obtained in the first place? There were no modern laws at the time and
by mustafa_pasi 5y ago
I find these property rights that go back centuries a bit dubious.
How was the property obtained in the first place? There were no modern laws at the time and common people had much fewer rights and protections. If the property was not obtained through outright violence, it was obtained in an environment that very much discriminated against common people, and God knows how much fraud and deception occurred.
It actually happened in my hometown a couple of years ago that some people produced a document from the 1500s entitling them to a huge expanse of land. Now at the time the land was conquered through war, and then that empire collapsed and another occupying empire took its place and that one also collapsed, and yet another foreign people came and went before independence was finally declared.
The people who actually lived on this land were always the same people. But somehow they don't have the right to the property that they lived on for almost a millennium, because a bunch of foreigners stole it through violence a few centuries ago and then handed what wasn't theirs to other foreigners. And now these foreigners think they have a claim to this land because their great ancestor murdered thousands of local people and took it for himself.
The whole thing is ridiculous.
- lainga 5y agoOut of interest, was it the Ottoman conquest of the Mamluks (who were later replaced by the Brits or French)?
- amelius 5y agoYeah, but capitalism isn't exactly fair either, with wealth ending up at a small percentage of people who clearly didn't work as much or took as much risk as all the other people combined. So if you go with that argument, then a much bigger reform should happen, not just the annihilation of these taxes.
- dillondoyle 5y agoAt risk of throwing a sub thread of chaos, this was what I found interesting in these comments. Specifically regarding the current Sheikh Jarrah conflict. Who actually 'owns' the land, and what does that mean? It seems like it completely depends on what time frame you look at and what claims the winner of war has or can enforce with force. In the US, what about the Native Nations and the canceling or flat out ignoring of past legal documents. or the land given to former slaves later taken away. Personally I lean towards your opinions. if the ruling power won't act humanely then reparations/compensation seems like the 2nd best option.