3 ms·

According to traditional american propaganda yes civil liberties of property ownership is critical. According to a deep reflection on the indirect impact these

According to traditional american propaganda yes civil liberties of property ownership is critical. According to a deep reflection on the indirect impact these civil liberties have in different scenarios, suddenly these civil liberties start imposing a staggering cost on others that becomes intolerable to pay. In less abstract wording it’s like the one hold out property preventing the building of a dam. Civil liberties are just a human abstract construct which go at odds with reality and as such cause inevitable downstream problems no matter how the civil liberties or laws are constructed or fabricated. Like you said theres no good answer but as such (while fully cognizant of issues with all sides) im beginning to dislike the current state of the status quo thats really only a modern phenomenon (nation states and most pieces of land being claimed for ownership by individuals or worse: large stakes of land claimed by small groups).

alephnerd 2y ago
> According to traditional american propaganda Literally every society holds ownership of land and property as a fundamental core value. > im beginning to dislike the current state of the status quo thats really only a modern phenomenon (nation states and most pieces of land being claimed for ownership by individuals or worse: large stakes of land claimed by small groups) People will not willingly give up their property without adequate compensation (and even then might not due to emotional attachment). If you want to back your words with threats of physical force, feel free to go ahead. There's a major reason most civil and criminal cases in both China and India revolve around land disputes and conflicting ownership. This has been the status quo of society for millenias - this is why you have folk stories like Hattefield McCoy, the biblical story of Zelophehad, the dishonest plowman of European folktales, the qissa of Dulla Bhatti's revolt against the Mughals, and the conflict between Der Shin and Der Yi in Chinese folklore. Private Land Ownership has literally been codified in the Hammurabi Code, the Arthashastra, the Bible, and the Book of Rites from the Zhou Dynasty.
- Agentus 2y ago
  Yes yes i get it :) ive grown up in a capitalist society, thats been vitriolically anticommunist, which ive drunken the koolaid fully, i get all the standard implications. I wish typing on an ipad with a flip phone size keyboard wasnt so troublesome. So please excuse issues with my typings. Funny enough in the bible, one can not cross into the spiritual realm with any earthly possessions. This partially highlights how nonintrinsic ownership is to reality. Looking at past serfdom societies or others ownership took a different form. Hunter gathering societies think borders are incomprehensible. Then theres colonialism where european powers took over Africa then claimed its inhabitants owed them an annual tax for the land which the natives already resided on. Israel claims ownership of Palestine on behalf the jews based on some 2000year religious inheritance and used force and manipulation to settle/colonialize already claim lands. Thats not to say im pro palestinian claims either. People will make some rationalized justification on why they are entitled to something when the natural state of nature is to just roam and intermingle freely. Theres all these weaselly ways to deprive people of property like gentrification or legal manipulations. Then theres always exceptions like imminent domain. Theres also the flipside if force used to seize territory, theres also the force used to protect illgotten territory from trespassers. Then theres the capitalist stakeholder math that crudely gives a vast disproportionate share of ownership to a few stakeholders (usually the progenitors of the capitalistic endeavor) despite it really being a rather conmunist at least laborwise endeavor. To put clearly its strange that jeff bezos can own ten percent of all of amazons collective largess despite it being a product of a million or 100000 laborers. All im saying is property ownership isnt natural and is usually stitched together in a crude manner usually according to the values of the times. Im uninterested in holding it sacred though i do recognize confiscating peoples properties at willynilly whims is quite problemmatic.

alephnerd 2y ago

> According to traditional american propaganda Literally every society holds ownership of land and property as a fundamental core value. > im beginning to dislike the current state of the status quo thats really only a modern phenomenon (nation states and most pieces of land being claimed for ownership by individuals or worse: large stakes of land claimed by small groups) People will not willingly give up their property without adequate compensation (and even then might not due to emotional attachment). If you want to back your words with threats of physical force, feel free to go ahead. There's a major reason most civil and criminal cases in both China and India revolve around land disputes and conflicting ownership. This has been the status quo of society for millenias - this is why you have folk stories like Hattefield McCoy, the biblical story of Zelophehad, the dishonest plowman of European folktales, the qissa of Dulla Bhatti's revolt against the Mughals, and the conflict between Der Shin and Der Yi in Chinese folklore. Private Land Ownership has literally been codified in the Hammurabi Code, the Arthashastra, the Bible, and the Book of Rites from the Zhou Dynasty.

Agentus 2y ago
Yes yes i get it :) ive grown up in a capitalist society, thats been vitriolically anticommunist, which ive drunken the koolaid fully, i get all the standard implications. I wish typing on an ipad with a flip phone size keyboard wasnt so troublesome. So please excuse issues with my typings. Funny enough in the bible, one can not cross into the spiritual realm with any earthly possessions. This partially highlights how nonintrinsic ownership is to reality. Looking at past serfdom societies or others ownership took a different form. Hunter gathering societies think borders are incomprehensible. Then theres colonialism where european powers took over Africa then claimed its inhabitants owed them an annual tax for the land which the natives already resided on. Israel claims ownership of Palestine on behalf the jews based on some 2000year religious inheritance and used force and manipulation to settle/colonialize already claim lands. Thats not to say im pro palestinian claims either. People will make some rationalized justification on why they are entitled to something when the natural state of nature is to just roam and intermingle freely. Theres all these weaselly ways to deprive people of property like gentrification or legal manipulations. Then theres always exceptions like imminent domain. Theres also the flipside if force used to seize territory, theres also the force used to protect illgotten territory from trespassers. Then theres the capitalist stakeholder math that crudely gives a vast disproportionate share of ownership to a few stakeholders (usually the progenitors of the capitalistic endeavor) despite it really being a rather conmunist at least laborwise endeavor. To put clearly its strange that jeff bezos can own ten percent of all of amazons collective largess despite it being a product of a million or 100000 laborers. All im saying is property ownership isnt natural and is usually stitched together in a crude manner usually according to the values of the times. Im uninterested in holding it sacred though i do recognize confiscating peoples properties at willynilly whims is quite problemmatic.