Whom does a land belong to?

[The Sheikh]

Simple question. And I don't mean Whom it belongs to according to the current global laws. I mean whom it should belong to?

[John Mace]

To whom do you think it should belong and why?

[UDS]

What do you mean by "a land"? And what do you mean by "belong"?

[Argent Towers]

It should belong to teh joos.

[yelimS]

While on the subject, I'm setting up shop in Bir Tawil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil). Might have some openings for ambassadors, PM me if you're interested. :D

[Giles]

What do you mean by "a land"? And what do you mean by "belong"?
Yes.

Is "a land":
(1) a piece of real estate, such as a house site or a farm, or
(2) a territory, such as a state or a province?

Does "belong" mean:
(1) able to use, e.g., as a house site or a farm, without interference from others, or
(2) able to sell or lease the land to others for similar uses, or
(3) able, along with others living on the land, to govern as a state or province?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Me.

[ataraxy22]

All your lands are belong to us.

[Trinopus]

Way too big a question. You might as well ask, "What is good?"

What is property? Go and visit a law library, and see thousands of volumes dealing with the subject!

"GUNPOWDER: A black substance much employed in marking the boundary
lines of nations." Gideon Wurdz, "The Foolish Dictionary."

[Czarcasm]

Sometimes it is possible for a question to be t

oo simple. Please give a "for instance".

[FinnAgain]

Me.

This is so obviously bullshit.
Land belongs to me.

[Rhythmdvl]

This land is your land, whereas this land is my land. I can't get into too many specifics on a message board, but relevant property lines include California, New York Island, the redwood forest and the gulf stream waters.

[Johnny L.A.]

I think you'll find that this is a joint-ownership situation. This land is your land, and this land is my land.

[An Gadaí]

It should belong to teh joos.

I'm glad jew think so.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Simple question. And I don't mean Whom it belongs to according to the current global laws. I mean whom it should belong to?

It probably should belong to whoever, by whatever means available, can keep others from taking it. That sentence extends from owning a condo all the way to a nation state.

[The Sheikh]

Do you think jews have the right to be citezens in palestine just because their ancestors were?
Do you think native americans and austrailians have the right to expel current citezens because its their land?
Why should a country so small and rich in its resources keep these resources for a small population and not share them?

[John Mace]

Do you think jews have the right to be citezens in palestine just because their ancestors were?

What is "palestine"?

Do you think native americans and austrailians have the right to expel current citezens because its their land?
no.
Why should a country so small and rich in its resources keep these resources for a small population and not share them?
Because we don't have a good system to determine how things should be "shared" and history has taught us that respect for property rights is much better than any other system invented yet. Unless you have a new system you would like to propose...?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Do you think jews have the right to be citezens in palestine just because their ancestors were?
Do you think native americans and austrailians have the right to expel current citezens because its their land?
Why should a country so small and rich in its resources keep these resources for a small population and not share them?
Australia isn't small and Israel/Palestine isn't rich in resources.

[Ravenman]

Are rock-strewn lands a resource?

[Lemur866]

Do you think jews have the right to be citezens in palestine just because their ancestors were?
Do you think native americans and austrailians have the right to expel current citezens because its their land?
Why should a country so small and rich in its resources keep these resources for a small population and not share them?
Ah, now we get to it.

So much for Qatar and Bahrain and Kuwait, and heck, Saudi, although it's large in acreage it's pretty small in terms of population.

Thing is, Israel isn't rich in resources. It doesn't have any oil or minerals or rich farmland, unlike some other nearby countries.

As to why we recognize international borders, it's because borders were created back in the Neolithic era, when one tribe decided to fight anyone else who tried to farm in a particular river valley. And then the neighboring tribe said, "OK, you farm over there, we'll farm over here, and that way we don't have to be constantly fighting each other". And that worked to keep warfare down to every couple of years, rather than every five minutes.

So legal theories of land ownership aren't handed down by God or Nature, they are a man-made attempt to keep violence to a minimum, so we don't have to constantly fight each other over who has the right to sleep, walk, farm, build, and piss where.

[XT]

Ah...I see what this is about now.

Do you think jews have the right to be citezens in palestine just because their ancestors were?

Nope (and though you didn't ask, the Jordanians living in 'palestine' probably don't have any right to 'be citezens' simply because their ancestors were in the region either)...they have the 'right' to be citizens of Israel, however, since they won those 'rights' through force of arms (the Jordanians are more problematic, but no one, including you, seems to question their 'right' to large portions of the former Palestine provincial territories). Pretty much exactly the same reason why every other nation on earth exists and why their citizens have the 'right' to live where they live.

Do you think native americans and austrailians have the right to expel current citezens because its their land?

I supposed they could try. There is no 'right'...there is ability. They no more have the ability of tossing out the current squatters on 'their' lands than the Palestinians have of tossing the Israelis out...or getting large swaths of 'their' land back from the Jordanians.

Why should a country so small and rich in its resources keep these resources for a small population and not share them?

I have no idea what you are getting at here. Which country is 'so small and rich in its resources'? How are they keeping those resources for 'a small population and not share them'?

-XT

ETA: or what Lemur866 said.

[Revenant Threshold]

The guy with the biggest stick.

[Mangetout]

Are rock-strewn lands a resource?

If you like rocks, certainly.

[Ibn Warraq]

What are citezens?

[John Mace]

The guy with the biggest stick.

You know who else had a big stick?

[Darth Panda]

Do you think jews have the right to be citezens in palestine just because their ancestors were?
Do you think native americans and austrailians have the right to expel current citezens because its their land?
Why should a country so small and rich in its resources keep these resources for a small population and not share them?

I'm not aware that anyone is a citizen of palestine, so this question doesn't really make sense.

Native Americans can expel people from the land that they own in the same way as any other landowner in America. I'm not familiar with how things work in Austraila.

Native Americans and Australians lost land to a bunch of people a long time ago. But Gaul lost territory to Rome and Byzantium to the Ottomans. Not to mention all of the land Lithuania lost to Prussia. Land has frequently changed hands due to conquest - not as much any more, but to assume that we need to try to figure all the conquests that ever took place and then undue them is silly. It's also silly to try to pick between all of the conquests and say this one counts but this one doesn't. Reality is messy business.

Why does anyone not share anything? It's typically because they feel like it rightfully belongs to them and they want or need it. Resources are limited, desires are not. The world will never be perfect.

[Darth Panda]

You know who else had a big stick?

It's either Teddy Roosevelt or Ron Jeremy...

[kayaker]

The guy with the biggest stick.

That's not my stick.

[XT]

Rabbit in your pocket then?

-XT

[Kobal2]

That's not my stick.

We know it was you wot dun it, tough guy. We've got witnesses who place the stick in your hands at the time the land was stolen. Just make it easy on yourself and own up.

[Revenant Threshold]

You know who else had a big stick? I'm not sure what that "else" in there implies about my reputation.

[robert_columbia]

Reported for promoting illegal drug use.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Do you think jews have the right to be citezens in palestine just because their ancestors were?

Those who don't want them to live in Palestine have failed spectacularly. So yes.

Do you think native americans and austrailians have the right to expel current citezens because its their land?

It's not their land, they lost. They can try to get it all back if they want but they'll only meet with failure.

Why should a country so small and rich in its resources keep these resources for a small population and not share them?

Because they won and their selfish.

[Bryan Ekers]

Why should a country so small and rich in its resources keep these resources for a small population and not share them?

Well, examine this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density) of countries sorted by population density. The first nation of significant area and population is #9, Bangladesh. I'm assuming you wouldn't say they were rich in resources, nor its population small, so I'm curious how far one would have to go down the list to find a country you'd consider selfish.

32. Israel, at 371/km2 ?
53. The U.K., at 255/km2 ?
56. Germany, at 229/km2 ?
179. The United States, at 32/km2 ?
223. Russia, at 8.3/km2 ?
230. Canada, at 3.4/km2 ?
235. Australia, at 3/km2 ?


I'm a little hard-pressed to picture Israel as rich in resources, but the U.S. certainly is, and Canada ridiculously is, for the populations they support.

[BrainGlutton]

Reported for promoting illegal drug use.

:eek: It's not a syringe, I'm just glad to see you!

[Trinopus]

What are citezens?

Dopers whose posts consist, in entirety, of the word "Cite?"

[BrainGlutton]

What is "palestine"?

Variant name for Iceland, I believe.

[The Sheikh]

What is "palestine"?

Palestine is a name of a hard test where human values can be evaluated.

Simple question. And I don't mean Whom it belongs to according to the current global laws. I mean whom it should belong to?

I think that you all skipped the word "SHOULD". I don't want you to explain the complications of politics for me. I know politics is about power. Ethics is only a makeup in politics. And that's not what I want to discuss. Ethics is what I want to discuss. How would your "Utopia" look like? What would be the fairest way of distributing land and resources among the people of earth?

And would somebody please explain the talk about "sticks" to me?

[Bryan Ekers]

Heck, my utopia (or at least a big step toward it) is that everyone stops caring about religious differences because religion has ceased to have any political value. Everyone lives in places that have strong (but amendable) constitutional systems that make no mention of gods, with responsive, incorruptible courts that resolve differences as peacefully and equitably as possible.

[Bryan Ekers]

And would somebody please explain the talk about "sticks" to me?

Well, Revenant Threshold said "[The land belongs to the] guy with the biggest stick", i.e. the land belongs to who has sufficient weapons to keep out all others. Other posters are just playing around with the phrase, since it reminds them of a quote by Teddy Roosevelt, who said of diplomacy: "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far," by which he meant negotiate peacefully, but don't make a secret of the fact that you have weapons and are prepared to use them.

[XT]

Palestine is a name of a hard test where human values can be evaluated.

Definitely...between those who strap explosives on themselves and walk into crowded shopping malls or onto buses full of civilians...and those who don't choose to act in such a way. Between those who randomly toss rockets at civilian towns...and those who don't do such things. It's a difficult test, but it really separates the people into definite categories, don't you agree?

I think that you all skipped the word "SHOULD". I don't want you to explain the complications of politics for me. I know politics is about power. Ethics is only a makeup in politics. And that's not what I want to discuss. Ethics is what I want to discuss.

'SHOULD'? What is this 'SHOULD'? I don't even know how to evaluate who should or shouldn't own anything. Should poor people be poor, or should they be rich? And if so, then should rich people be poor? Why? Should an evil person be killed and a good person let live? Who decides what is evil and good...and how do they control fate and luck?

Ethics? Well, if we are going with who deserves to live in Palestine (since that's what you REALLY want to talk about, obviously), then I'd say it's pretty much a toss up. The natives to the region certainly did some fairly heinous things both before and after the establishment of Israel...and that would be the natives of all religions, including the native Jews who lived in the area long before Israel was founded. So...deserve? Gods know. They are all so, you know, HUMAN...and so 'deserve' doesn't really factor in. Ethics? What are these 'ethics' thingies you talk about and how do you even evaluate such things. Do you weigh who has done the most heinous things and then say that they are obviously less ethical?

How would your "Utopia" look like? What would be the fairest way of distributing land and resources among the people of earth?

My 'Utopia' would involve a human species reaching for the stars and devoting all it's energy to outward expansion and preservation of the species. Well, that and perhaps myself as God Emperor, being fanned on a nice beach by scantily clad love muffins pealing me grapes and similar things along those lines. I don't believe that there IS a 'fairest way of distributing land and resources among the people of earth', to be honest. The universe isn't 'fair'. Shit happens. We simply do the best we can. Based on the past, shitty as things might seem today they are nearly infinitely better and more 'fair' today than they have ever been in the history of our species...and if things keep going the way they are, they are probably going to get more 'fair' in the future. About as 'fair' as is possible.

-XT

[John Mace]

Palestine is a name of a hard test where human values can be evaluated.
Oh, well that sure clears thing up...



I think that you all skipped the word "SHOULD".

No, we didn't.

But since you know so much, why don't you tell us what you think instead of just throwing out questions.

[The Sheikh]

But since you know so much, why don't you tell us what you think instead of just throwing out questions.

I think humanity should now reach its pinnacle by eliminating borders and neutralizing religion. People should have the right to live and own land wherever they wish. And resources should be shared wisely among all the people of earth. So, I have the right to own a cottage by the river in the US. And the oil in my country is not controlled by my local government. Jews have the right to gather in the place they like to call Israel, and Palestinians have the right to gather in the place they like to call Palestine. Starving people in Africa have the right to escape death and seek life wherever they wish.

[Argent Towers]

Palestine is a name of a hard test where human values can be evaluated.

LOL.

Why did you choose Palestine for this test out of all the other countries on the planet?

Could it have something to do with joos?

[yelimS]

All your lands are belong to us.

Q.E.D.

And yet, 36 posts later, we're still here?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Whoever lawfully owns the property.

[Bryan Ekers]

Whoever lawfully owns the property.

According to whose laws? If your law says you own it and someone else's says you don't, what then?

[XT]

Then you will have to have a cage match to settle things I suppose...

-XT

[Lemur866]

Whoever lawfully owns the property.

Where do laws come from? Laws are created by human beings. Property law was not handed down to Moses chiseled onto stone tablets. In North Korea they have one system of law, in South Korea they have another, and in Papua New Guinea they have another. So just appealing to "whatever the law says" don't work so well.

[Odesio]

Way too big a question. You might as well ask, "What is good?"


That's easy. To defeat your enemy, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women. Sheesh. Ask something hard.

[Ibn Warraq]

LOL.

Why did you choose Palestine for this test out of all the other countries on the planet?

Could it have something to do with joos?

Why are you asking this? Does he have a history of having issues with Jewish-related issues?

[Argent Towers]

When people single out Israel, and only Israel, as the one example of a "hard test" of "human values", then yeah, I think they have a problem with the Jews. Out of ALL the countries in the world that are doing bad things, you single out the one Jewish country? Why is it so hard for people to understand?

[Guinastasia]

I think humanity should now reach its pinnacle by eliminating borders and neutralizing religion. People should have the right to live and own land wherever they wish. And resources should be shared wisely among all the people of earth. So, I have the right to own a cottage by the river in the US. And the oil in my country is not controlled by my local government. Jews have the right to gather in the place they like to call Israel, and Palestinians have the right to gather in the place they like to call Palestine. Starving people in Africa have the right to escape death and seek life wherever they wish.

And while you're at it, I'd like a pony.

[Darth Panda]

Conquest gives a title which the courts of the conqueror cannot deny, whatever the private and speculative opinions of individuals may be, respecting the original justice of the claim which has been successfully asserted.... The claims have been maintained and established... by the sword....

The title by conquest is acquired and maintained by force. The conqueror prescribes the limits. Humanity, however, acting on public opinion, has established, as a general rule, that the conquered shall not be wantonly oppressed, and that their condition shall remain as eligible as is compatible with the objects of conquest. Most usually, they are incorporated with the victorious nation, and become subjects or citizens of the government with which they are connected....

But the tribes of the Indians inhabiting this country were fierce savages, whose chief occupation was war... to govern them as a distinct people, was impossible, because they were as brave and as high spirited as they were fierce, and were ready to repel by arms every attempt on their independence.

What was the inevitable consequence of this state of things? The Europeans were under the necessity of either abandoning the country, and relinquishing their pompous claims to it, or of enforcing those claims by the sword, and by the adoption of principles adapted to the condition of a people with whom it was impossible to mix, and who could not be governed as a distinct society, or of remaining in their neighborhood, and exposing themselves and their families to perpetual hazard of being massacred.

Frequent and bloody wars... unavoidably ensued....

That law which regulates, and ought to regulate in general, the relations between the conqueror and conquered, was incapable of application to a people under such circumstances. The resort to some new and different rule, better adapted to the actual state of things, was unavoidable. Every rule which can be suggested will be found to be attended with great difficulty.

However extravagant the pretension of converting the discovery of an inhabited country into conquest may appear; if the principle has been asserted in the first instance, and afterwards sustained; if a country has been acquired and held under it; if the property of the great mass of the community originates in it, it becomes the law of the land, and cannot be questioned.


Chief Justice Marshall
Jonhnson v. M'Intosh
21 US (8 Wheat) 543, 1823

[foolsguinea]

1) Men arguing over who owns the land are like fleas arguing over who owns the dog.

2) When Alexander died, he was asked who would inherit his empire. His answer? "The strong."

[Lust4Life]

You have two couples living next door to each other, they both have the same jobs, with the same incomes, at the same company, and they both own one car.

As time goes on couple A have two children as does couple B.

As time goes on couple B have two more, and then another couple and then another couple

Neither of the families have had a pay rise, so couple B are struggling financially, also with the number of children that they have, their house and garden are a mess.

The situation is that couple A have %50 of the cars in the street though theres only four of them, while couple B have the other %50 shared between the eight of them.

Is this a fair division of the resources ?

Should couple A give part of their wage to couple B because they have less people to spend it on ?

Or maybe allow some of the chidren from family B to live in their house, though of course this may mean that their quality of life will be significantly lowered ?

It doesn't seem fair does it that the A's have a comfortable life while the B's are having a crappy one.

Or maybe the B's should stop making excuses and take responsibility for their own actions?

Wealthy countries usually, but not always, have made their countries well off by their own actions, not by some stroke of luck or whatever.

And spare me the "Oh the wicked Europeans stole all of the third world countries resources".

What exactly did they steal?

The products of subsistance farmers for example ?

I don't think so somehow.

Or maybe they stole mineral wealth that the locals couldn't locate, couldn't access if they could locate it, and couldn't utilise if they could have got it out of the ground.

Oil and Tungsten aren't all that useful if you haven't invented the internal combustion engine or have industry.

If the wicked whitemen hadn't come then the mineral resources would still be untouched underground to this very day and for the forseeable future.

Or maybe its stealing from them, developing wasteland that has lain untouched for all of living memory into highly productive farmland ?

Depends on your point of view I suppose.

Just as the continually poor countries aren't poor because of their climate, or their soil, or being picked on by other countries, or by bad luck, but by their own actions, or more usually by their own corruption, and lack of action.

(Look at Iceland for eample, good standard of living, well educated population, but an appalling climate, not overloaded with natural resources and located in the back of the beyond)

Lets go for our own personal instant gratification, rather then look to the long term.
Lets dish out the goodies to our friends and families, and everyone else can grab what THEY can eh ?

And then afterwards complain bitterly that the rich countries aren't helping them enough.

That, without of course explaining where all the tens of Billions of dollars given to them in aid have disappeared to, on top of the advice and education given to them for free.

The fact is that the self inflicted poor nations and nationalities have ethically or morally, no automatic entitlement to that which others have earned.