Survey Says: Ownership of Property by AnthonyT

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Survey Says: Ownership of Property

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Thursday, May 20, 2010 14:49
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 925
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:24 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

The ownership of property is an item where I detected a difference of opinion in the general survey.

To further explore it, I wonder what the answer is to these questions:

1) Should a person be allowed to own a house?

2) Should a person be allowed to own an acre of land?

3) Should a person be allowed to own a car?

4) Should a person be allowed to own a Farm?

5) Should a person be allowed to own a stockpile of a commodity (say, 100 pounds of gold?)

6) Should a person be allowed to own an explosive (say, a stick of dynamite?)

7) Should a person be allowed to own a weapon (say, a revolver?)

8) Should a person be allowed to own a tractor?

9) Should a person be allowed to own an animal?

10) Should a person be allowed to own a factory?

Thank you,

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:36 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yes to all, except the dynamite, unless they have a damned good reason that doesn't have to do with blowing up others!

I don't see how anyone can answer "no" to any of those except that one; why would anyone here think anyone has no right to property? Doesn't track...

So yeah, okay, my FEELINGS are different about pets and ownership, but that's not the way the world works, so "yes" even there.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:42 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Yes - to every single question.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:54 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

As I said, my yardstick is demonstrable physical harm. If someone is going to do harm with whatever it is they own, then no. Ownership itself is not really much of an issue to me, so long as harm is not being done. Contribution to wellbeing is, of course, even better. If someone owns an acre of land and uses it to produce nourishing food, that contributes to wellbeing, of themselves and potentially others. That's very good. If they don't do anything with it, or use it to build a house and live on, that's good. If they use it as, say, a dumping ground for super toxic wastes and it has a marked harmful effect, then that is not okay. But again, the ownership itself there is not the issue, the issue is what might be done with it. Something might contribute to wellbeing, it might be neutral, or it might cause misery and harm. Causing marked, demonstrable physical harm, that is not okay. It can take a lot of forms, but all those forms can be measured, most of them can be easily seen and empathized with by most human beings, and none of them are okay.
So, yeah, ownership itself? Cool with me. Up to and including explosives, so long as there is not harmful intent or harm caused with such ownership.
That extends to demonstrable harm of an animal that's within someone's care or ownership. If said animals are meant to be eaten, they should be treated well and killed cleanly. Failure to do so causes demonstrable harm not only to the animals, but probably to the people eating them. Healthy animals and feces-free meat is just the way to go.
I tend to think this sort of thing is pretty much a "Duh, no shit" for the most part, but I find myself clarifying it a lot, hence the ramble.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:59 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Yes to all but the dynamite. And only because it tends to be quite unstable, and thus creates a danger beyond your own property line. Besides, there are so many better explosives readily available out there! :)

Now, some supplemental questions.

If we stipulate that you are indeed allowed to own a house, a car, a farm, a factory, etc....

Are you allowed to pollute the air with your factory?

What about the ground under or around your factory?

And the water? It's on YOUR land, isn't it?

If I own a car, and drain the oil while it's on MY property, can I then dump that oil in the storm drain on my property?

If I start a trash fire on my property, and the embers catch my neighbor's barn on fire, is that my bad? Or is it his problem because it's HIS barn?

In other words, where do MY rights and responsibilities as a property owner begin and end?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 20, 2010 1:01 PM

KWICKO

Dang, Rose - you beat me to my point! :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 20, 2010 1:07 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Good supplemental issues, Rose and Mike.

However, I want to establish the basics, because It's possible that even the basics leave room for disagreement.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 20, 2010 1:37 PM

KWICKO

Fair enough, T.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 20, 2010 1:57 PM

RAHLMACLAREN

"Damn yokels, can't even tell a transport ship ain't got no guns on it." - Jayne Cobb

Wow, this one's easier than the last one.

Yes 10x. Although, again, I'd want a paper trail with the explosives.

--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 20, 2010 2:49 PM

FREMDFIRMA

To help PR simplify it for everyone -

Own it, sure - but what you *DO* with it, ah, now that's where responsibility comes in and makes it tricky...

-F

PS. only reason I can slice it down like that is cause Anarchists get lots and lots and LOTS of experience defending their position, so all the rough edges get sandblasted off their arguments damn quick like.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE