Was the hypothetical previous owner a citizen of a terrorist state, intent on genocide, that refused any and all compromises offered, decade after decade? — counterpunch
I don't. All things being equal, one ought abide by agreed conventions. That's what an agreed convention is. — Banno
But your opinion is insufficient. — Banno
In this admittedly narrow situation do the descendants of the original owner have a legitimate claim to the land. And it so, how do we resolve things? E.g., what happens to the current title owner? They may be many generations removed - is it fair to deprive them of their home due to something that happened centuries past? — EricH
She was Estonian. They are very smart people. Few, but smart.Ah, we bow before Counterpunch's ex- girlfriend! With such brilliantly expounded argumentation, how could he be wrong! — Banno
I don't. All things being equal, one ought abide by agreed conventions. That's what an agreed convention is.
Which is preferable, a person who is true to their word or a person who is not? — Banno
despite working the land, he did not own it until his neighbours agreed that he owned it. — Banno
Is there any legal / moral framework that can be used to resolve these issues in an impartial manner? Or put differently - what are the rules for determining the rightful owner of said property? — EricH
I'm not offering a solution, just pointing to the cause. — Banno
Sure. But we don't need to agree with that. — Apollodorus
What do you think? — Banno
I think you just made Banno's point about "property is owned with the agreement of those involved, and hence enforced in virtue of that agreement" — ssu
That's why we need to distinguish between legal and moral rights of ownership. — Apollodorus
There are a near infinite number of possible scenarios here — EricH
I think we should all be cautious of taking up another people as reservoir for our moral ideals & fantasies. — csalisbury
And let all men say what they will, so long as such are rulers as call the land theirs, upholding this particular propriety of mine and thine, the common people shall never have their liberty, nor the land be ever freed from troubles, oppressions, and complainings, by reason whereof the Creator of all things is continually provoked... — Gerald Winstanley
Apollodorus, what do you think is the basis of either legal or moral rights? — ssu
My apologies if I came across that way - not my intent. I find find it very challenging to express myself succinctly yet clearly. My eyes glaze over when I see a post that goes on for paragraphs - but without sufficient detail you can lose context. Perhaps this will help:I'm not playing a rigged game. — counterpunch
could be wrong but I think EricH was talking about the moral perspective of land ownership. — Apollodorus
And one more: I don't know the full history, but here in the US my house sits on land that was undoubtedly seized from Native Americans about 400 years ago. If there are people alive today who could trace their ancestry back to that place & time, are they the rightful owners of the land my house sits on? — EricH
“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine" ... was the true founder of civil society. — counterpunch
The answer is that ownership is a function of social intentionality. Property is owned only with the agreement of those involved, and hence enforced in virtue of that agreement. — Banno
Jewish people vs Palestinians - who has the rightful claim to the land? Beats me. Perhaps no one.
Northern Ireland - should it be united with Ireland or stay part of Britain? Does anyone have the moral high ground here?
Kurds - are they entitled to their own country or should they forever be split out amongst Turkey, Syria, and Iraq?
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict - I don't have the time/energy to understand all the details, but it is an ongoing tragedy. — EricH
Just to be clear - what is the basis for the "rightfulness" of these claims? Is it solely based on the ability to demonstrate to have inhabited the land before the other claimants? — EricH
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.