ok so imagine someone is trespassing. If you use your property rights to exclude them from your property, then all the possible timelines of them existing on your property has been deleted. You have thus defined their being-ness. Even the phrase “someone is trespassing” is subject, verb, and adverb which is to say that 1.) a thing 2.) exists 3.) in a particular way. Therefore property rights are necessarily owning the existence of others and determining how they get to be in the world. You have essentially segregated a part of the world where they can no longer exist.
Think about the hypothetical where all of the land in the world is privately owned, assuming you too own a square chuck of land. In this world, your freedom to exist is limited to just your land. You are in essence imprisoned in your gridlocked land much in the same way a fish is trapped in a fishbowl. Now imagine you do not own land. Where would you go? You have nowhere to go. The floor under your feet has been ripped away so to speak. The carpet has been pulled under you. You do not get to exist as you are.
This is to say that land is a fundamental aspect of reality (space) that defines all people and things. i do think a re-evaluation of property rights is warrented considering it underlies all of “stuff” and matter and our very own existence
The flaw in this argument is that Beingness isn’t defined by whether or not someone is on my (or anyone else’s) property.
Besides, land ownership is a cluster of rights (land surface, subterranean, air, etc.), none of which are owning humans. Did you know you can sell your land, but keep some rights, such as mineral rights? Crazy! And typically a functioning society has public lands like roads and forests and parks - and because of the way the market works, shops want you on their property to buy stuff.
Is your big complaint that non-landowners (unhoused) have no place to go?
quacky@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
ok so imagine someone is trespassing. If you use your property rights to exclude them from your property, then all the possible timelines of them existing on your property has been deleted. You have thus defined their being-ness. Even the phrase “someone is trespassing” is subject, verb, and adverb which is to say that 1.) a thing 2.) exists 3.) in a particular way. Therefore property rights are necessarily owning the existence of others and determining how they get to be in the world. You have essentially segregated a part of the world where they can no longer exist.
Think about the hypothetical where all of the land in the world is privately owned, assuming you too own a square chuck of land. In this world, your freedom to exist is limited to just your land. You are in essence imprisoned in your gridlocked land much in the same way a fish is trapped in a fishbowl. Now imagine you do not own land. Where would you go? You have nowhere to go. The floor under your feet has been ripped away so to speak. The carpet has been pulled under you. You do not get to exist as you are.
This is to say that land is a fundamental aspect of reality (space) that defines all people and things. i do think a re-evaluation of property rights is warrented considering it underlies all of “stuff” and matter and our very own existence
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
The flaw in this argument is that Beingness isn’t defined by whether or not someone is on my (or anyone else’s) property.
Besides, land ownership is a cluster of rights (land surface, subterranean, air, etc.), none of which are owning humans. Did you know you can sell your land, but keep some rights, such as mineral rights? Crazy! And typically a functioning society has public lands like roads and forests and parks - and because of the way the market works, shops want you on their property to buy stuff.
Is your big complaint that non-landowners (unhoused) have no place to go?
quacky@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Existence is defined in terms of space, and if you disagree, then show me something that exists that doesn’t occupy space.