3 ms·

> Neville and his solicitor commenced civil legal proceedings, alleging that an islander had decided that Neville’s house was blocking his view of the sea... an

> Neville and his solicitor commenced civil legal proceedings, alleging that an islander had decided that Neville’s house was blocking his view of the sea... and had decided to get rid of it. Clearly since the people on the island are human beings they too would hate with a passion anyone who did this. So, there's a huge part of the story missing. No one wants to lose property rights either. If you leave the island, people might destroy your stuff would scare anyone.

pjc50 5y ago
> Clearly since the people on the island are human beings they too would hate with a passion anyone who did this. Other way round: since they're human beings they have loyalty among each other, and a relationship structure they're unwilling to compromise. Destroying the house of a resident obviously wouldn't stand, but who's going to be a snitch for the benefit of the outsider? This happens a lot in abuse situations. You will find out afterwards that a lot of people knew to some extent what was happening, but were unwilling to have the confrontation that would result from speaking out about it, or to put up with the long term social consequences of being the person who spoke up.
- dclowd9901 5y ago
  > but who's going to be a snitch for the benefit of the outsider? I would, but I also have something of an antagonistic streak and a finely tuned sense of justice. I imagine there are many people out there, even in a small community of 120, who would have no problem sticking it to the establishment out of spite. It doesn’t take a big community to sow a faction of dissidents.
  - meltedcapacitor 5y ago
    Your "finely tuned sense of justice" is just a way to say everyone who disagrees with you is a piece of shit. Very nice.
underwater 5y ago
The law is just an agreement with a large group of people that says "don't do anything bad and we'll watch out for you". These people have just replaced that with their own informal arrangement. They probably prefer their got-your-back arrangement because they trust their neighbours more than they trust people outside the community. In addition it tips the scales in their favour because their law doesn't need to protect everyone equally. In this case outsiders are not afforded the same benefits as islanders. They just need a reasonable belief that they won't be steamrolled by the actual law, which comes from having a tight knit community where people don't run to the police. You see the same pattern amongst cops, the mob, remote communities, etc.
meltedcapacitor 5y ago
Property rights do not exist in nature, they are just stories people tell each other. A house is just a pile of bricks. There is no objective concept of ownership. Ownership only appears when people tell each other consistent stories, and it becomes a social norm in some society that if you follow some rituals then you can do things like having a say on how a particular pile of bricks is used that others may respect. On occasion, different people will tell different stories about things and there will be disagreement. Here it seems the islanders do not consider such an outsider can "buy" and "own" a house according to the law and rituals of the mainland. The mainland is like a colonial power they resist. They just have they own laws in effect, that they can enforce (to a degree, someone still got a fine) through the community united in not collaborating with mainland agents. It's neat. Social norms vary, and elevating your norms above everyone else's is very ugly indeed. The islanders are as human as you, they just have a moral code that's not the same as yours.
- ornornor 5y ago
  By that token, there is no life and just a collection of specifically arranged atoms. There is no murder, just metabolism alterations by a third party.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    You're certainly right about murder. You wouldn't say that a cat "murdered" a mouse, you would say a cat killed a mouse. Just as when a dog has a bone, you wouldn't say the dog "owned" the bone. There's a difference between material reality (such as life, killing, and physical possession) and the moral framework you attach to it (like murder and ownership.) Ownership is something a government does for you, and encompasses whatever arbitrary rules that government imposes and is willing to enforce. That's why this is a discussion about what courts should do.
    - bagacrap 5y ago
      I would say a cat murdered a mouse, in particular because cats seem to kill a lot of small animals for no practical reason (as opposed to hunger, for example). If you're suggesting there's a valid moral code where murder is ok (for humans), well, I guess that's a matter of opinion, but I expect many people will disagree with you.

pjc50 5y ago

> Clearly since the people on the island are human beings they too would hate with a passion anyone who did this. Other way round: since they're human beings they have loyalty among each other, and a relationship structure they're unwilling to compromise. Destroying the house of a resident obviously wouldn't stand, but who's going to be a snitch for the benefit of the outsider? This happens a lot in abuse situations. You will find out afterwards that a lot of people knew to some extent what was happening, but were unwilling to have the confrontation that would result from speaking out about it, or to put up with the long term social consequences of being the person who spoke up.

dclowd9901 5y ago
> but who's going to be a snitch for the benefit of the outsider? I would, but I also have something of an antagonistic streak and a finely tuned sense of justice. I imagine there are many people out there, even in a small community of 120, who would have no problem sticking it to the establishment out of spite. It doesn’t take a big community to sow a faction of dissidents.
- meltedcapacitor 5y ago
  Your "finely tuned sense of justice" is just a way to say everyone who disagrees with you is a piece of shit. Very nice.

underwater 5y ago

The law is just an agreement with a large group of people that says "don't do anything bad and we'll watch out for you". These people have just replaced that with their own informal arrangement. They probably prefer their got-your-back arrangement because they trust their neighbours more than they trust people outside the community. In addition it tips the scales in their favour because their law doesn't need to protect everyone equally. In this case outsiders are not afforded the same benefits as islanders. They just need a reasonable belief that they won't be steamrolled by the actual law, which comes from having a tight knit community where people don't run to the police. You see the same pattern amongst cops, the mob, remote communities, etc.

meltedcapacitor 5y ago

Property rights do not exist in nature, they are just stories people tell each other. A house is just a pile of bricks. There is no objective concept of ownership. Ownership only appears when people tell each other consistent stories, and it becomes a social norm in some society that if you follow some rituals then you can do things like having a say on how a particular pile of bricks is used that others may respect. On occasion, different people will tell different stories about things and there will be disagreement. Here it seems the islanders do not consider such an outsider can "buy" and "own" a house according to the law and rituals of the mainland. The mainland is like a colonial power they resist. They just have they own laws in effect, that they can enforce (to a degree, someone still got a fine) through the community united in not collaborating with mainland agents. It's neat. Social norms vary, and elevating your norms above everyone else's is very ugly indeed. The islanders are as human as you, they just have a moral code that's not the same as yours.

ornornor 5y ago
By that token, there is no life and just a collection of specifically arranged atoms. There is no murder, just metabolism alterations by a third party.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  You're certainly right about murder. You wouldn't say that a cat "murdered" a mouse, you would say a cat killed a mouse. Just as when a dog has a bone, you wouldn't say the dog "owned" the bone. There's a difference between material reality (such as life, killing, and physical possession) and the moral framework you attach to it (like murder and ownership.) Ownership is something a government does for you, and encompasses whatever arbitrary rules that government imposes and is willing to enforce. That's why this is a discussion about what courts should do.
  - bagacrap 5y ago
    I would say a cat murdered a mouse, in particular because cats seem to kill a lot of small animals for no practical reason (as opposed to hunger, for example). If you're suggesting there's a valid moral code where murder is ok (for humans), well, I guess that's a matter of opinion, but I expect many people will disagree with you.