The Philosophical Thread

[Woolly]

I'm... actually with the Shark on this one.

Ownership of land is something that someone made up once simply so they could exploit it, and the people who live on it.
I appreciate that governments and councils definitely should have power over what happens on said land, but the idea of private ownership of land is kinda ludicrous. The first person to 'own' that land just said that they did, and hoped that no-one bigger and nastier turned up.

[Funt Solo]

So, I can have your house, then?

[Woolly]

So, I can have your house, then?

I don't own a house.
Also, houses don't just happen naturally.

A man builds a house, he deserves to be paid. That's fine.
I'm talking about the land that's under it.

[Funt Solo]

So, I can permanently camp out on your lawn? And so can anyone else who feels like it?

[The Mind of Wolfie Smith]

on my lawn? yes, of course. i expect peaceful and respectful behaviour. but how objectively odd and arrogant to refuse - on the basis that this particular fecund sward and all the air around it, with all its actual potential and complexity of consciousnesses - is somehow mine? even odder, when such spurious ownership (as it usually is) is mainly due to centuries of fortuitous events and often selfish actions that have absolutely nothing to do with me.
enjoy it. no fighting. chill out.

[Funt Solo]

Such crusty! Your expectation of peaceful and respectful behavior is interesting. Are you claiming ownership, then?

[The Mind of Wolfie Smith]

less crusty, i hope, and more pale blue dot.

i think a mutual exchange of not hurting each other is less ownership and more stewardship (which is something that homo sapiens is perfectly capable of but very reluctant to actually attempt ... indeed, questions of ownership probably get in the way of this).

[The Legendary Shark]

My definition of ownership is based exclusively on my local legal framework. 

Which says what?

So, I can permanently camp out on your lawn? And so can anyone else who feels like it?

Sure. Why not? I mean, if you cannot or will not define what you mean by ownership then anything goes. Defining terms is an important step in discussions like these where we explore ideas. This is the Philosophical Thread, where there's no winning or losing, not the Political Thread, where winning and losing was more important.

My proposed definition of ownership (having possession of and control over an owned object or objects) would suggest that no, you cannot permanently camp out on my lawn without my express permission. But is this the correct way for ownership to work? In the event of some disaster where people are made homeless, would camping out on somebody's lawn without permission be acceptable behaviour? What about camping out in similar circumstances on somebody's thousand acre estate? Is there a difference between the two? Should there be a limit to the amount that one person can own and, if so, how would such limits best be decided? Should there be no limits to ownership despite the consequences to the less fortunate? Would it be better for stewardship to replace ownership? Would a mix of stewardship and ownership be better? Or something else entirely?

[Funt Solo]

*Responding to Wolfie*

This feels like hair-splitting, though. As a steward, you're giving yourself authority over the land. Isn't that just a synonym for owner? Same function, different title?

The original premise of the discussion was that ownership of land is a completely fucking bananas idea. But stewardship (some kind of temporary responsibility) is okay?

Why should a person (or a family, or a tribe, or a nation) not lay claim to some territory? It's what humans have done, since time immemorial. The argument that it's some kind of insanity is only an argument against our very nature.

I can side-step into a discussion of too much ownership - like a private landowner (say, the Crown) having access to country-sized chunks of land - but that's really a conversation about corruption and an over-extension of power, rather than the general idea of land ownership. Isn't it?

[Funt Solo]

Shark, I'd like to focus on the part of your post I agree with. Your final paragraph is copacetic. It's a far cry from your opening gambit, where you used pretty strong terms to decry the very notion of land ownership. I'm far happier in the land of subtlety you've reached here. Of course, yes, there's a huge difference between laying claim to just enough land, and laying claim to far too much land. I think that's the crux of it, right there.

As for defining terms: I usually just use dictionary definitions and existing frameworks, rather than starting out every discussion trying to come to terms with words that already have meanings. I hope you can see how I find that a fair place to begin. Otherwise, I might go mad. Aha! But how do you define "mad" etc. We'd be here all bloody day at that rate.

[The Legendary Shark]

Defining terms may seem dull and unnecessary, and most of the time it is - we don't have to define every term we use (that would be mad...) - but to simply and quickly define the term under discussion can save a lot of misunderstandings and frustration. It's as simple as, "I'd like to discuss X, by which I mean "DEFINITION," do you agree?" "Yes, that seems fine." "Okay then, X is..." etc., etc.

Also, thank you for introducing me to the word "copacetic," which I am now itching to use!

[Mister Pops]

Defining terms may seem dull and unnecessary, and most of the time it is - we don't have to define every term we use (that would be mad...) - but to simply and quickly define the term under discussion can save a lot of misunderstandings and frustration.

Having an interest in mathematics, I don't think defining terms is dull or unnecessary. To construct any kind of formal argument, it's imperative to define anything that isn't axiomatic, or doesn't have a widely accepted conventional definition.

That's not to say every definition should be hard and fast. I think dictionaries are supposed to describe the conventional use for a word, not proscribe a definition to it. I'm with Funt block in that the dictionary definition is sufficient, and diverging too far from its descriptive definitions put you into proscriptive territory. Ideally we'd all have expansive vocabularies that would allow us to use words with the perfect descriptions of the ideas we're trying to convey.

I'm not big on epistemology, I think it encourages talking around a subject rather than exploring it. But if there was ever a thread to get into one of the pillars of philosophy, I suppose this is it.

[Funt Solo]

on my lawn? yes, of course. i expect peaceful and respectful behaviour. but how objectively odd and arrogant to refuse - on the basis that this particular fecund sward and all the air around it, with all its actual potential and complexity of consciousnesses - is somehow mine? even odder, when such spurious ownership (as it usually is) is mainly due to centuries of fortuitous events and often selfish actions that have absolutely nothing to do with me.
enjoy it. no fighting. chill out.

I had to come back to the whole lawn thing, because you used the word "objectively" where I assume you must have meant "subjectively". I totally get an idea that one might be inclined to share one's land with those who ask. I've had backpackers stay in my garden (and use my loo) before - so this is something I've seen in positive action. (Not literally - I didn't actually watch them use the loo. Now I'm imagining one of those disturbing thrillers where a previously jolly actor plays a sociopath.)

I'm thinking that surely (post-agreement) "peaceful and respectful behavior" wouldn't be the only factor one would consider in first reaching an agreement. What I mean is: if someone wishes to make use of my garden, I definitely want to be consulted, and I would then make the call based on how I felt about the people who were asking. I can easily imagine people I'd be accepting of and folk I'd turn away. There's also the case of whether I'm even available (or able to delegate) the new responsibility of playing host.

How could taking part in a bit of consideration (judging each case on its merits) be "odd and arrogant"?

Of course, I'm coming at this from the angle that humanity's collective imagining of land ownership (or stewardship) isn't all bad.

[Funt Solo]

 - So, you're a philosopher?
 - Yes. I think very deeply.

Boogie Down Productions - My Philosophy


Whoop! Post 10,000! Is numerology meaningful?