Re: [Phys-l] OT: Reflecting on Ethics (was A geek's ... "Avatar")

[Hugh Haskell <haskellh@verizon.net>]

At 08:45 -0600 01/05/2010, Rauber, Joel wrote:
> Does the same logic apply to the wearing of provocative clothing and 
> sexual crimes?

To some extent, probably yes. But just as with the shoplifting issue, 
being stupid, or insensitive to the possible inclinations of others 
does not excuse the perpetrator of the crime. Wearing provocative 
clothing is not (at least in this part of the world) a crime, but a 
sexual assault, even on someone provocatively dressed, or even 
someone working in the sex industry, is still a crime, irrespective 
of the vulnerability or willfulness of the victim in her choice of 
attire.

If the manager and all the employees of a bank left the building, 
leaving the vault open and the cash unattended would be incredibly 
stupid, and probably would result in all of them being sacked even if 
nothing came of their misfeasance, but they would have committed no 
crime. But if, while they were away, someone came in and cleaned out 
the bank's cash, they would have committed a serious bank robbery and 
probably would spend a reasonable period of time in stoney lonesome 
for their efforts (bank robbery being one of the least successful 
crimes, along with kidnapping, in the US), again, irrespective of how 
easy the bank personnel made for the thieves to do their thing.

I also pretty much agree with BC that property ownership, especially 
land is problematic. Most land doubles in use as habitat for animals, 
and we are increasingly destroying that habitat, creating one of the 
leading causes of species becoming endangered or disappearing 
altogether. Leaving out the animal situation, our society (and I 
suspect much of the world today) is designed around somebody owning 
every square inch of land--if not people or corporations, then the 
government. But that hasn't been true forever. Early societies used 
the land either communally or temporarily before moving on. No 
thought was given to "ownership." So ownership had to start 
somewhere, and hence the ownership went to whoever got there first or 
whoever had the most weapons, or however much you could successfully 
defend, or some combination thereof. By the time things settled down, 
most of it was owned by a few people, usually the kings, who then 
doled out "ownership" to favored subjects, usually to ensure their 
loyalty. Any natives who has used that land communally prior to the 
arrival of the king or his minions were cut off from access to the 
land, because it now "belonged" to somebody else.

I'm guilty of buying into this scheme, just like most everyone else. 
I've owned property for most of the past 50 years, and grew up in 
homes owned by my parents. Of course, if we didn't own our own, we 
would live in someplace owned by somebody else. Whenever I purchase a 
home, I have to have a title search made. It never seems to go back 
to the natives who first occupied the land, only to some arbitrary 
cutoff (like a homestead date, or something like that). Anyone whose 
ancestors might have held a prior claim tot he land is simply out of 
luck.

I wouldn't object to finding some more equitable way to handle the 
land we occupy, but I cannot figure one out. If I refused to purchase 
land on principle, then I'm just shifting the problem one level 
up--to the landlord, who then owns the property. This isn't a 
solution. If the land is held communally, how would it be distributed 
for use and who would control that and mediate disputes? Governments 
aren't going to be very good at that since they would then assume 
ownership, and we'd then occupy the land at the pleasure of the 
government--we're right back where we started from.

So I guess I'm stuck with the system we have, and need just be 
thankful that I'm not related to the original occupiers of the land I 
now occupy.

Hugh
--
Hugh Haskell
mailto:hugh@ieer.org
mailto:haskellh@verizon.net

So-called "global warming" is just a secret ploy by wacko 
tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and 
water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 
21st-century industries, and make our cities safer. Don't let them 
get away with it!!

					Chip Giller, Founder, Grist.org