who owns the world?

[thx1138]

http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/?ref=patrick.net

[tstv_lover]

What a strange article. She certainly doesn't own my freehold properties in the countries named!! and the Duke of Westminster is the richest land owner in the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/15/duke-westminster-property

[thx1138]

Well, doesn't every property owner pay some sort of land tax? In a sense paying that tax everyone is renting from the government.

[thx1138]

Well, doesn't every property owner pay some sort of land tax? In a sense paying that tax everyone is renting from the government.

[trish]

Well, doesn't every property owner pay some sort of land tax? In a sense paying that tax everyone is renting from the government.

If the government OWNED the property, there wouldn’t be a private land owner to pay the PROPERTY tax. You just got yourself entangled in a logical conundrum! Taxes simply do not function as rent. Land owners do NOT have leases with their respective governments. In the U.S., as I assume in most other places, property owners hold titles.

So who owns the world? No one, yet; but in the libertarian world view, any asshole who gathers enough personal power and money has every right to own every fucking square inch, right? I mean no government should stand in his way?

[hippifried]

I own the world. I just bought it.

It's mine. Mine I tell ya! MINE MINE MINE!!!

Now everybody get the fuck out!

[thx1138]

Well, what would happened if owners did not pay the tax? Sooner or later a sheriff would come and forcibly evict you from "your" property. If it were truly "your" property NO ONE could evict you.

[hippifried]

Ok ok... I'll let a few of my favorites stay if they pay up. The rent just got raised.

[trish]

Well, what would happened if owners did not pay the tax? Sooner or later a sheriff would come and forcibly evict you from "your" property. If it were truly "your" property NO ONE could evict you.Even though you haven’t explicitly answered my question, I think I see your tact. By using the modifier “really” or "truly" you hope to distinguish between “real ownership” (which is, according to you, the current relation between “the” government and “your” land) and “pseudo-ownership” (which currently passes for ownership and is the current relation between tax paying property “owners” and “their” land).

Okay let’s go with that. The modifier “truly” suggests there is such a thing as "true", or “real ownership”. That “real ownership” is something more than a social construct; something more than what we define it to be through custom or law. But what can this relationship between a person and his property be, if not a social construct? If it were a physical relationship one would expect to discover physical tests for ownership. Perhaps elementary particles are exchanged between an owner and what she owns. In that case we could test for the exchange of possessive-gluons. If the relationship were metaphysical, then of course you could never know whether you owned something or not in so far as the metaphysical realm is inaccessible from and transcends ordinary understanding.

Libertarianism is the last bastion of theology; its god is the metaphysical notion of property. The rest of us are clear. We know there is no such thing as “real ownership” distinguishable from the social construct of “ownership” that is determined by custom and law. The notion of ownership is society dependent (likely originating in some biological dispositions toward possessive behaviors) and its understanding varies from place to place and time to time. At one time people in the U.S. could own other people. No longer.

It seems libertarians have some confusion about what the social construct of property IS in the U.S. They seem to think that if you own something, you can do anything you want with it. That, however, is not our understanding of property. If you own a gun, there are legal constraints on how it may be used. If you own giant speakers, you may find that you still have to obey the noise ordinances in your neighborhood. If you own property within the border of a municipality, you may find that you are required to help maintain the local roads, the traffic lights, the bridges, the sewer system, the school system and other infrastructure that advantage your choice of location. Usually these things are supported by property taxes. Municipalities do not have the same rights as property owners. They do not own your land and you do not pay rent to the local municipality. You pay taxes and you have all the rights that American society and law accrues to property owners; just not all the "rights" that libertarians think they should have.

Do I think local infrastructure and public schools should be supported by means other than property tax? Yes and no. Most municipalities depend way too heavily on this particular source of revenue. I would like to see more State and Federal support for local infrastructure and education, through the tax on income, including income earned through the trading of stock. Perhaps you don’t care if the road to your house is pitted with potholes, the traffic lights in your town aren’t working and the sewers occasionally back up and flood your neighbor’s basement. Perhaps you don’t care if your neighbor’s kids learn to read, write and cipher. Perhaps you just don’t want them to learn on your dollar. Too bad, whiner. In the U.S. we expect a certain amount of cooperation for our mutual benefit, and we have written those expectations into law. Repeatedly break the law, and you may wind up having to sell your property to pay your lawyers.

[tstv_lover]

Well, what would happened if owners did not pay the tax? Sooner or later a sheriff would come and forcibly evict you from "your" property. If it were truly "your" property NO ONE could evict you.

I'll skip over Trish's comments, not because I disagree but because it gives me a headache when I wander into philosophy.

Just for the hell of it, I typed "what if I don't pay tax" into Google and this was one of the first articles picked up:

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/CouncilAndDemocracy/CouncilTax/PayYourCouncilTax/IfYouDontPay.htm

Interesting to note that although the council may sell some of your belongings to offset costs, may initiate legal proceedings that will land you in prison, may petition to have you declared bankrupt and may put a "charging order" to recoved council debt from a future property sale - they CANNOT EVICT YOU.

This is the UK. Of course the situation in the US (and New Zealand) may be quite different - I'm not tempted to test that right now.

[thx1138]

I was thinking primarily of condemnation proceeds where the gov't seizes your property - not much choice there. As for the taxes (fees actually) that cover services such as police, sanitation, road maintainance, public schools etc. if unpaid the gov't should use the options of garnisheeing the property owner's salary an/or putting a lien on his bank accounts. Eviction should not be used. It should be left up to the property owner to decide if the property should be sold to pay these charges or financed by borrowing rather than a forced eviction.

[hippifried]

you get fair market value through condemnation. I don't know exactly how the figure is reached, but there's a formula.

Homeowners are free to refinance or sell their property at any time for any reason. They have to qualify for any loans of course, & creditors get theirs off the top from any sale of course.

What's the point?

[thx1138]

Your property isn't truly (or really) yours if you can be evicted from it forcibly by the gov't. There have been plenty of complaints the proprty owners didn't get true market value in condemnation proceedings.

[beandip]

"If the government OWNED the property, there wouldn’t be a private land owner to pay the PROPERTY tax. You just got yourself entangled in a logical conundrum! Taxes simply do not function as rent. Land owners do NOT have leases with their respective governments. In the U.S., as I assume in most other places, property owners hold titles."

Try not payin' your property taxes (land). Let me know how that works out for ya. ;)

[thx1138]

Government seizure: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090507/ap_on_re_us/us_flight93_memorial

[trish]

"If the government OWNED the property, there wouldn’t be a private land owner to pay the PROPERTY tax. You just got yourself entangled in a logical conundrum! Taxes simply do not function as rent. Land owners do NOT have leases with their respective governments. In the U.S., as I assume in most other places, property owners hold titles."

Try not payin' your property taxes (land). Let me know how that works out for ya. ;)I already addressed that issue, beandip. Why don't you try keeping up with the discussion?

[trish]

Your property isn't truly (or really) yours if you can be evicted from it forcibly by the gov't. There have been plenty of complaints the proprty owners didn't get true market value in condemnation proceedings.So once again you use the modifier "truly" without clarifying your meaning. Do you subscribe to a metaphysical notion of propery? Certainly the law and ordinary understanding consistently distinguish between taxes and rent. Why can't you? Everyone else understands that ownership doesn't mean tax-free.

[thx1138]

Trish: look up really and truly in any dictionary. @ beandip: agreed, that's why I amended my opening comment with the post at 11/6/09 at 3:29am. The confusion in my mind is over the word taxes. It should really be "service use fees".

[thx1138]

the great water heist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqHaUadsapc The next logical step after this is to calim all the water in our bodies. Sounds a bit totalitarian to me. I could be wrong though.

[trish]

thx asserts,
The confusion in my mind is over the word taxes. Very nicely put.

[hippifried]

the great water heist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqHaUadsapc The next logical step after this is to calim all the water in our bodies. Sounds a bit totalitarian to me. I could be wrong though.The video starts right off with an incorrect premise. Water has never been considered private property. It creates a natural easement. A property owner gets to use water that crosses their land, but they don't get to pollute it or deny its use to those downstream. Water isn't static. It's always moving & crossing boundaries. Claiming water as private property has never led to anything but trouble. Historically? Think range wars. Look at the piecemeal levee systems that have exacerbated flooding throughout the Mississippi - Missouri - Ohio complex. It's not just navigation.

[thx1138]

Well then, why the need for this legislation? It looks like property owners will not be allowed to siphon off some of the water without asking government's permission. Is that's what's happening now?

[hippifried]

Because there's still jokers, like whoever made that lame video, who don't get it. It ain't their water! When stupid people continue to do stupid things, the government usually ends up stepping in. If these yokels don't want government interference, all they have to do is stop being stupid.

[thx1138]

Well, if oil is discovered on your land does it belong to you? What about stationary water in an aquifer?

[trish]

Gee, thx, do you own that portion of the Earth's mantle that's between the Earth's center and your private property? Does everyone or no one own the point at the very center of the Earth?

Ever hear of mineral rights. Some property titles do not include them.

Given that aquifers are usually larger then just one person's property and that disease agents and toxins may spread throughout an aquifer (even if we assume the water is stationary) through the phenomenon of diffusion, I certainly would be in favor of laws that appropriately restrain the abuse of wells and aquifers by individuals and corporations that have private ownership of various wells and other access points.

[NYBURBS]

When stupid people continue to do stupid things, the government usually ends up stepping in.

The government steps in for a wide variety of reasons, and to prevent stupidity is not high on the list. More often than not it's about ensuring that certain people get to keep a say in what does or does not happen.

With that said, you are correct that as a general rule water that falls under special rules and privileges. Riparian rights is the actual term, and it's designed to keep one person from fucking with another person's access to the same water source.

[thx1138]

Yes, I own everthing below my property unless gov't comes along, passes legislation to the contrary which is what they are doing with this legislation. (closing a loophole)

[trish]

You will recall that under the latest Bush administration the term “navigable” was reinterpreted so that certain private concerns could circumvent the clean water act with impunity. My guess is the new legislation is an attempt to reinstate the understanding that existed prior to 2002.

BTW, I certainly would support any legislation that prevented private concerns from tampering with the Earth's mantle.

[hippifried]

Well, if oil is discovered on your land does it belong to you? What about stationary water in an aquifer?You'll have to run a title search to see if you own the mineral rights. Actually, unless you're really stupid, there was a search done before closing. Check your paperwork. If oil is discovered under you, & everything checks, you can drill if you have the money to hire the rig & crew, & you can get the permits. Normally, you just cut a deal with the oil company & get a piece of the action. I you can't come to an amicable agreement, they'll just cut a deal with your next door neighbor & suck it out from under you. It's not like there's a little pocket of oil under your back yard. Hope you're not overly attached to your lawn.

You can't own the aquifer. The only stationary water is ice, & that's just moving slow. Claiming ownership of the aquifer is like claiming you own Lake Michigan because you have a beachfront condo. Water moves underground too. You're not allowed to pollute the ground because it seeps into the aquifer & poisons wells 50 or 100 miles downstream. Wells are drilled by permit, & you're only allowed so many acre feet from the public reserve.

There are no "property rights" to water at all. You don't even own the flowing stream if your land completely surrounds the spring. "Navigable" only applies to waterways that are patroled under jurisdiction of the coast guard. Any kook can make a Youtube video.

[russtafa]

i think china will end up owning the world or dominating the world though its economic muscle

[q1a2z3]

If the government OWNED the property, there wouldn’t be a private land owner to pay the PROPERTY tax. You just got yourself entangled in a logical conundrum! Taxes simply do not function as rent. Land owners do NOT have leases with their respective governments. In the U.S., as I assume in most other places, property owners hold titles.

So who owns the world? No one, yet; but in the libertarian world view, any asshole who gathers enough personal power and money has every right to own every fucking square inch, right? I mean no government should stand in his way?

WOW!!! I'm seeing some daylight in that statement and yes!!! property taxes like many other taxes need to GO!!! Taxes should never be more than 10% of ones total annual income. Everyone should pay their taxes including those who make $1.00/yr. Cough up your 10 cents! Government, all government should never be allowed to have more than 10%. If government employees want to create crazy programs they can hold telethons on TV to fund them. Taxes, just like government-run school systems are part of the communist manifesto and need to be abolished.

[trish]

So where did the magical 10% come from? The fact our number system is base ten? The fact that ancient Jewish law was based on ten commandments? The fact that people generally have 10 fingers? The fact that you have 10 brain cells? Why 10%. What's so special about ten one hundredth of your total annual income? You bring up an interesting example: the person who makes only a dollar a year. Doesn't the very existence of such a person demonstrate the need for a graduated tax?

And what pray tell, what does this latest rant have to do with the post you quoted? Are you admitting now that taxes aren't rent? Are you saying we only own our land if we annually pay ten percent of our income to the government? Does the government own our land if we pay less? More? Could you endeavor to be a little clearer on this subject? Are you aware that public school systems pre-date the communist manifesto? Are you aware that the Constitution of the United States grants the Federal Government the power to levy taxes for military purposes and for the general welfare and that the Constitution pre-dates the communist manifesto? Are you aware that the people are the Federal Government, that Federal lands are Public lands?

[hippifried]

WOW!!! I'm seeing some daylight in that statement and yes!!! property taxes like many other taxes need to GO!!! Taxes should never be more than 10% of ones total annual income. Everyone should pay their taxes including those who make $1.00/yr. Cough up your 10 cents! Government, all government should never be allowed to have more than 10%. If government employees want to create crazy programs they can hold telethons on TV to fund them. Taxes, just like government-run school systems are part of the communist manifesto and need to be abolished.
Well... I guess that 10% forced tithe you want everybody to pay makes you a commie. I think there should be a special surtax on whiners & another one on stupidity. That'd pretty much keep you in the poor house where you belong.


Trish,
You being generous on the brain cell count?

There was like 14 or 15 commandments at least. Everybody just plays fast & loose with them so they don't get confused by having to take off a shoe. For instance: The Catholics blew off the one about graven images. The Protestants resurrected it & combined the "covets" to maintain the number at 10. I saw a full list somewhere, but I'm disinterested enough that I won't bother looking for it. Of course it started with just one. The burning bush gave Moses the original commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself, & he took it back to the wandering throng. The next day or so he had to go trekking back up the hill to tell the bush that it was just too damn complicated & they needed details. Oh well. I guess the Randian libertarians aren't a new phenomenon after all.

[trish]

Jehovah could have used a little advice from MicroSoft's Clippie: "I see you're trying to make a list. Would you like some help?"

[Virtualdistance]

http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/?ref=patrick.net

The shits who always owned it , vatican , DC , london inner city ...
And i can tell ya they are furious they cant own DPRK go juche :D

[Virtualdistance]

Well, doesn't every property owner pay some sort of land tax? In a sense paying that tax everyone is renting from the government.

Which is plain wrong cause everyone should be in the goverment , then we'd get goverment checks instead cause everyone would be leader of the board of the country : Shared chairmanship...

[loveburst]

Even though you haven’t explicitly answered my question, I think I see your tact. By using the modifier “really” or "truly" you hope to distinguish between “real ownership” (which is, according to you, the current relation between “the” government and “your” land) and “pseudo-ownership” (which currently passes for ownership and is the current relation between tax paying property “owners” and “their” land).

Okay let’s go with that. The modifier “truly” suggests there is such a thing as "true", or “real ownership”. That “real ownership” is something more than a social construct; something more than what we define it to be through custom or law. But what can this relationship between a person and his property be, if not a social construct? If it were a physical relationship one would expect to discover physical tests for ownership. Perhaps elementary particles are exchanged between an owner and what she owns. In that case we could test for the exchange of possessive-gluons. If the relationship were metaphysical, then of course you could never know whether you owned something or not in so far as the metaphysical realm is inaccessible from and transcends ordinary understanding.

Libertarianism is the last bastion of theology; its god is the metaphysical notion of property. The rest of us are clear. We know there is no such thing as “real ownership” distinguishable from the social construct of “ownership” that is determined by custom and law. The notion of ownership is society dependent (likely originating in some biological dispositions toward possessive behaviors) and its understanding varies from place to place and time to time. At one time people in the U.S. could own other people. No longer.

It seems libertarians have some confusion about what the social construct of property IS in the U.S. They seem to think that if you own something, you can do anything you want with it. That, however, is not our understanding of property. If you own a gun, there are legal constraints on how it may be used. If you own giant speakers, you may find that you still have to obey the noise ordinances in your neighborhood. If you own property within the border of a municipality, you may find that you are required to help maintain the local roads, the traffic lights, the bridges, the sewer system, the school system and other infrastructure that advantage your choice of location. Usually these things are supported by property taxes. Municipalities do not have the same rights as property owners. They do not own your land and you do not pay rent to the local municipality. You pay taxes and you have all the rights that American society and law accrues to property owners; just not all the "rights" that libertarians think they should have.

Do I think local infrastructure and public schools should be supported by means other than property tax? Yes and no. Most municipalities depend way too heavily on this particular source of revenue. I would like to see more State and Federal support for local infrastructure and education, through the tax on income, including income earned through the trading of stock. Perhaps you don’t care if the road to your house is pitted with potholes, the traffic lights in your town aren’t working and the sewers occasionally back up and flood your neighbor’s basement. Perhaps you don’t care if your neighbor’s kids learn to read, write and cipher. Perhaps you just don’t want them to learn on your dollar. Too bad, whiner. In the U.S. we expect a certain amount of cooperation for our mutual benefit, and we have written those expectations into law. Repeatedly break the law, and you may wind up having to sell your property to pay your lawyers.

Hello,

Interesting thoughts here, (good ones I mean) and I wished to adress this abit..

..I think what is in consideration here, is the person, who is the one with the capacity - in terms of what law allows - to by their own decision, affect whatever happens on a part of land.

Incase, the laws would allow for the total and last voice to be heard from the Queen / whomever is the legal owner of the ..hmm.. "area of land", then we can consider that person to be the one who truly can - according to the law - have the most affection over it, incase they so choose.

Also, if we consider someone having the right to even sell that part of the land, then we can consider that someone as the one who has the only legal right over getting the doe from mere decision, or from a swift of hand... without having to do much for their income - atleast on that certain case, compared to the others, who either live on the area, or have other relation to the place in general.

Therefor, incase what is shown here turns out to be true, atleast we can say that the one who has the legal rights to that property, has some advantage over others - who might by their birthright (onto this planet, as souls and consciousnesses on earth) have just as good a right to make something useful out of that certain part of land, by their own means, as the one now having that right to that special decision.

What I mean by this, is not wheter one can build a house to a certain place and do lawnmowing on whatever the day they wish to, but to really turn things around in that place... or choose not to turn around might be better way to explain this, since the one who does have the final say in the matter of what happens to a certain place, ie. will there be a railroad or not, or will there be houses or roads built on top of, is the one, who in terms of the law truly has that right. Wheter the Queen now possesses this right, or wheter she/their family etc. the kingdom have sold it to someone else to handle, or wheter she/they or any group of beings have this right and advantage over others, is I think, the question here, when we consider whomever has an ownership..

Though I do not know about the leagal hassles, and different requirements in the different parts of the world regarding as to what one must co-operate with in order to be eligible to their parts of the land.. I know that in the end, we might consider the owner, or the true one having the overall power over that landscapes destiny to be the one, who can get a red pen, mark a certain area on the map, and receive goods for handing that part over to someone elses theorethical posession. Be it how much metaphysical, or behind the scenes, the one benefitting of such a transaction could be considered, as to I think the poster meant as being the "true owner".

The question remains, -though- wheter the statistics shown on the quoted site remain true, or not..

btw. sorry for the long reply, and thank you for thoughtraising ideas Trish.

[trish]

Thank you, loveburst, for your kind considerations. It's been some months since I wrote that post. On rereading it seems right to me that property is neither a physical nor a metaphysical relation connecting owner to owned, but rather a social construction that plays into the natural possessive and territorial dispositions in human behavior. Consequently I don't think its possible to arrive at a definitive philosophical theory of ownership. Being a social construction the boundaries of the notion will always be under negotiation(both in ordinary social interactions and in law) and those boundaries will differ from place to place and time to time.

You bring up some interesting issues. Your example of one who has the legal right to sell land he has no "connection" to as opposed to those who live on the land and are intimate with it. Cases like this abound. One that comes to my mind is the Louisiana Purchase. Here there were at least two different cultures (Native & European) and hence at least two different social constructions of ownership and therefore at least two different conceptions of how the notion of ownership should be applied to the territories in that purchase. Unfortunately these sorts of conflicts usually end in violence and the final decision goes to the power lucky enough and positioned well enough to come out on top.

Your own example is a less violent one: the property owners whose properties are condemned in order to make way for a railroad, or a highway etc. In this example there's one society and one legal system and one social construction of property. But there is conflict because the example is near the boundary of our notion of property and hence open to negotiation, in this case the negotiations are likely to take the form of litigation toward legal settlements.

The notion of property is complex. Who has the sole use of an object or a piece of land (if anybody) is not the only issue. Who has the right to the water that flows across the borders? What can they do with that water? Who has the right to the toxic waste that is produced by the owner of a factory? Can he do whatever he wishes with that waste? On his own property can the owner of a gun fire it randomly in any direction? The use, safe use, disposal, and the safe keeping of property are all issues of property that have no one single answer. Our society and the law constantly visits and revisits these issues on a case by case basis as questions and conflicts occur. I don't think that in most cases of interest there is an ultimate owner, not the Queen, not the government not stock owners, not homeowners...because each one has a responsibility to the other in regards to the property in question.

[hippifried]

In the grand scheme, the Afro-Eurasian concept of land "ownership" is brand new. Only a few centuries. It didn't exist in pre-columbian America at all, or any of the so called "primitive" agrarian societies. I suppose one could make the argument that it dates back to at least the time of Abraham & all the rituals of birthrights & such for passing down the family farm, & even that's still biting everybody in the ass. Title ownership is a tweak on the universal social construct of territorial control for usage, whether by the society as a whole or a specific individual.

The idea of title ownership is a 2 edged sword. It can be used as a protection for the controling land user. But more often than not, it's used as a tool to involve third parties in the takeover of land. The law is just basic rules set down to aid society in using its social constructs. It's not supposed to be complicated. Philosophy turned meme makes it complicated.

Too often, a tall tale, told enough times, becomes historical belief used to prop up ideologies & arbitrary rules. One of my favorite comic myths is that some Dutch settlers "bought" Manhattan Island from the Lenape Indians in the early 17th century. How do you "buy" something from somebody who has no concept of title ownership or currency? What really happened was that there was an exchange of gifts & a friendship established which allowed the Dutch to live unmolested in the putrid swamp that was lower Manhattan at the time. Over & over we hear the stories of how land was "bought" from mythical chiefs & kings, & how violence was justified in keeping the purchased land from being taken by savages who tried to welch on the deal.

The concept of land ownership is feudal for the most part. Titled ownership goes hand in hand with titled nobility. Even our own southern rebellion was feudal landlords trying to maintain control over vast tracts of arable land & their human "property" that was the farm equipment used to make it produce. Every time we turn around, there's somebody using property as an excuse for violence toward & subjugation of other people. Control of land is control of resources.

We need a rethink on our priorities.

[Silcc69]

I'm jsut sayin though

Allodial title is a concept in some systems of property law. It describes a situation where real property (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Real_property) (land, buildings (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Building) and fixtures (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Fixture_%28property_law%29)) is owned free and clear of any superior landlord. Allodial title is secured by various state constitutions. An individual's allodial title is alienable, in that it may be conveyed, devised, gifted, or mortgaged by the owner, and may also be distressed and restrained for collection of taxes or private debts or condemned (eminent domain) by the government.
In common legal use, allodial title is used to distinguish absolute ownership of land by individuals from feudal (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Feudal) ownership, where property ownership is dependent on relationship to a lord (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Lord) or the sovereign (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Monarch). Webster's first dictionary (1825 ed) says "allodium" is "land which is absolute property of the owner, real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgment to a superior. It is thus opposed to "feud."

[hippifried]

I make no distinction. A title's a title. We've created a memetic social construct where all land must be "owned" by somebody or some entity. Why? Because that's the way the feudal lords set it up back in the day. We just shifted title to corporate trusts. Do you even know anyone with an allodial title? I doubt it. Everything's leveraged. There's not even any more classic mortgages these days. The closest thing we have is the equity loan. Mortgage contracts today are deeds of trust, & the financial institutions (lords) appoint the trustees (fiefs). The only difference is the hereditary nobility factor.

I have to question the whole memetic Afro-Eurasian social construct of land ownership. I understand it because Igrew up in it, but I can also see the point of view of societies that don't recognize land ownership at all. The whole thing seems to make everything more complicated & cause more problems than it solves. There's a difference between ownership & social territorial use control, which we practice also. Do we really need both? What would happen if we treated land the way we do the public airwaves, for instance?

[russtafa]

what a load of bollocks power comes thru money or might and if you have them you'd be the boss

[trish]

The value of money comes from the willingness to accept it in exchange for goods and services. Might comes from the willingness of others (armies, workers etc.) to serve and/or obey and that service and/or obedience is given sometimes for money and sometimes for a cause. No one's power is independent of the community who grants it.

[hippifried]

what a load of bollocks power comes thru money or might and if you have them you'd be the boss
Well that's exactly the problem I'm trying to address. The meme that somebody being "the boss" is some kind of natural order. I've seen no evidence of that. Yes, wealth is a tool to gain power & vice versa, but why is that blindly accepted as the way things are supposed to be? The only reason I can find is that that's what's been forcibly drummed into people's heads as the norm for the last few millenia. Not necessarily everywhere though, which leads me to think it may be possible to expose the meme for what it is & break it. I don't accept the idea that current norms are necessary or necessarily desirable. Why do so many people buy into the idea that the way things are is the way they should be & the only way they can be?

[kyoJecours]

Well that's exactly the problem I'm trying to address. The meme that somebody being "the boss" is some kind of natural order. I've seen no evidence of that. Yes, wealth is a tool to gain power & vice versa, but why is that blindly accepted as the way things are supposed to be? The only reason I can find is that that's what's been forcibly drummed into people's heads as the norm for the last few millenia. Not necessarily everywhere though, which leads me to think it may be possible to expose the meme for what it is & break it. I don't accept the idea that current norms are necessary or necessarily desirable. Why do so many people buy into the idea that the way things are is the way they should be & the only way they can be?

agree 100%. all you can do is set your own goals and try to achieve whatever makes yourself happy. i don't think it's possible to change the mindset of a brainwashed society. i used to get disillusioned with people telling me to strive for things they insisted were important but to me seemed trivial. so i just decided fuck it and live my life the way i desire :)