This world is not ours

[Occhidiangela]

Hello,

Man has been created by Nature . We come from it , we belong to it , just like other animals . We belong to a whole , this whole is Nature . We are a part of Nature , we belong to a big family , this family is life on Earth .

When you build a house for yourself , you consider it to be yours because you built it , your are its owner . Someone who enters this house and then leaves it is just a visitor . Someone who comes and wants to live in this house becomes the tenant of the owner .

This is the same logic for planet Earth . Man did not create planet Earth , we are just tenants of this planet . Tenants cannot claim what is not theirs . Man cannot claim ownership of land , thus ownership of land is not morally right . Thus the existence of countries is some kind of hypocrisy (because ownership of land is not right ).

However , Man has created the concept of ownership of land because of cupidity , selfishness and vanity . Genocides were committed to conquer lands .
Why not simply share land ?
The right to be free  and to be free to travel freely around Earth without borders is my dream .

This is a philosophical topic . It is not about economics or politics . Politics and economics come from the will of humans . I am not talking about what Man wants , I am talkinng about who he really is , his real place no matter what he wants .

Please , no trolling , no incoherent posts , no quick trivial answers in my thread . This is a serious topic , I want you to be sincere .

Abramelin
[right][snapback]75906[/snapback][/right]

Please , no trolling , no incoherent posts ,

Then follow your own guideline, and delete your post. :P

OK, why not toss a few ping pong balls back over the net?

Man has been created by Nature . We come from it , we belong to it , just like other animals . We belong to a whole , this whole is Nature . We are a part of Nature , we belong to a big family , this family is life on Earth .

Assumption, assertion, unproven. Man is. That we know. Man either evolved or was created. It matters not, for the purposes of considering whether or not you wish to argue the concepts of property, ownershipe and theft; the issue of labor inhering value; or the difference between dominion, domination, and stewardship of the planet. Or all of them.

Man is, and if Man wishes to continue to be, Man must make provision for a habitation conducive to long term survival. Tenant on Earth, eh? So, to whom does man pay rent? Other Men, last I checked. Nature has yet to serve an eviction notice. What Nature does do, now and again, is destroy -- see earthquakes and tsunamis -- and in doing so engages in creative destruction. In your anthropomorphising Nature, you seem to neglect Nature's destructive and violent nature. Equity and balance require a broader look than you give.

This is the same logic for planet Earth . Man did not create planet Earth , we are just tenants of this planet . Tenants cannot claim what is not theirs . Man cannot claim ownership of land , thus ownership of land is not morally right . Thus the existence of countries is some kind of hypocrisy (because ownership of land is not right ).

You assert Tennancy, yet you choose to ignore Gift. Is Earth a Gift to Man, or is man merely part of a larger ecosystem, which permanence is in doubt? Prove your answer, if you can. I hold the answer unknown and unknowable to you and I.

Back to your contractual model, you ignore squatters rights. Tenants can accrue property rights and value by their improvements on land. You can claim ownership of anything you find, and it is yours unless someone can prove it is not.

Read that last sentence again, as it deals in the exercise of Will, a feature of Man, be He evolved or Created. If Nature created Man, Nature gave him Will. Ownership can begin with a simple claim. Human custom and Law is whatever we bloody well make up, and can agree to.

Did you notice that neither Mother Nature, The Universe, nor God ever show up in Court? They needn't waste their time. Law and property rights are man made. Ant hills are ant made. A Dam or a Bridge is also man made, but very real. Likewise real are the Laws and practices of Man. These laws and conventions are agreed on structure around which societies, which are a coping and survival mechanism Man has developed, exist. Likewise, the lines on the map which define boundaries and countries are as real and as righteous as Man makes them. The line on the map is as important as Man, or some subset of Man, chooses it to be.

Your next bit needs a lot more work before you take it on the road.

However , Man has created the concept of ownership of land because of cupidity , selfishness and vanity . Genocides were committed to conquer lands .
Why not simply share land ?

Why indeed? So, what is your answer?

If the answer were simple, that is how it would be. Conflict is born of dozens of factors, which includes Will, or Volition. People disagree, that is in their nature. Why do you assume in your question that Man will act un-naturally and "simply share" everything? That Man will stop Disagreeing? Why do you assume that there is indeed One Right Answer, a condition necessary for Disagreement to end?

Ownership ideas Man has made, however, your assertion of causation is both unfounded and unsupported. Ideas and models of ownership are a matter of fact, the "why" is variable. Part of the answer to "why" ownership models arose is as a byproduct of finding ways to Agree, to live harmoniously, particularly in times and conditions of scarcity.

Is Man, collectively, wise enough to sustain his habits to date? That remains to be seen. You appear ready to write Man off as a hypocrite, a poacher, and a squatter who has no rights to, or on, Planet Earth. Man has whatever Rights He makes up, and I hold Earth as a Gift to Man. (It matters no the agency, God or Nature. Prayer was invented, IMO, for such sentiments as "Please, don't let Man, as a whole, screw this up.")

Rights and laws are what "we," Man, say they are. Some social models are universal, some less so. Each will stand until someone, or something like the laws of physics or biological process, proves it wrong or overturns it.

Earthquakes and tsunamis change the land or lines on a map, just as bad farming, slash and burn, war, or other misuse can turn land into desert or change the lines on the map. How then, pseudo-philosopher Abramelin, is Nature any better than Man? Nature kills without remorse, without conscience.

Is your next rant going to be about the unrighteousness of the Earth and Nature?

Occhi