This world is not ours

[Nystul]

Was this post a question or a statement. The only questionsmark I found was put after "why not share land".

Well I think we do allready. Normally a citizen of,  say Norway can walk around freely in (at least) Norway (and several other countries). A piece of land belonging to that country means that another country may not put claims on it to for example say that everybody there should obey the rules made by the queen of england.
Somebody from Norway however is also not allowed to build a house in some park....because it belongs to everybody in Norway...and by building a house it would get quite difficult feeding the ducks or not? So we make enough rules to let people do what they want with the planet or not?
[right][snapback]75986[/snapback][/right]

I think the post was actually just a clever redirect of a locked thread. But if we assume it was a serious question, then the houses vs. ducks thing is probably about the best serious answer given.

Philosophy is known to come up with ideal solutions for a non-ideal world. For whatever reason, people don't think alike. People don't always want to act in the best interest of the community. Even when they do, they won't agree on what the best interest of the community is. So Bo wants to drain the pond and build a house, and Mo wants to feed the ducks. How is our great global natural commune supposed to resolve this? So we have public land, where a given community agrees to reserve the land for a certain thing and the government enforces that, and we have private land, where the community essentially "agrees to disagree" and each person gets to dictate what happens in their own playbox. I suppose that is about as detailed as one can take this without getting into economics or politics. :rolleyes: