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

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

On 2010, Jan 05, , at 16:47, Hugh Haskell wrote:

> 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.

That's the reason I gave to two friends who, ad hominem, questioned my renting out my Lompico house -- not much choice when living in the belly of the beast.


On 2010, Jan 05, , at 16:47, Hugh Haskell wrote:

>  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.

The origin, I think, of the expression Indian giving.  They welcomed the Europeans until they discovered they weren't going to "move on".


I think the "acts of enclosure" was the end of one solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts


bc notes the Marxist interpretation, and would, by the BLS's definition, be poverty stricken w/o that rental.

p.s. in socialist Russia one could own only one dwelling space and most rented.  The state enclosed and owned the land.