It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land...." Umm, NO it Really Isn't!

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   

This thread is in response to the immigration debate threads



I have posted this as my final stance (quite literally for the most part) in a majority of the immigration threads that are on the boards currently. Although I prefer to give this stance it's own thread as to show this is the "bottom line" no matter how you slice it.

Alas, people and their petty differences, this is not "your land" to stake any claim of ownership on, nor is it "my land" to do so...

Here's the thing, there isn't one grain of sand on this Earth that has the right to be "claimed" by anyone. Where is it written that the Earth is a piece of property, more so, how can any human, or ethnicity for that matter, consider it "just" to stake a claim to something that isn't and never will be their property?

This is where "people" get confused and caught up in their minuscule existence in this vast Universe. The why and how of our existence is comprised of many different origins based on one's belief. None the less, Earth was here long before you and chances are it will be here long after you.

Ownership of property (land or otherwise) is an illusion. I am 99.9% positive you won't be taking it with you when you "go". If that was the case, there wouldn't be much of an Earth left as everyone would have taken their "little piece" with them.

This precious commodity that is our Earth, could be gone in the blink of an eye. Life is a gift, cherish it, and everything in it, your time to do so is but a drop in the bucket.

Oddly enough, we consider ourselves to be the most intelligent creatures on this Planet.

Edit to add:

As I am sure it will be approached soon enough,

On the subject of Governance.

I realize there has to be a hierarchy in place. However therein lies the issue with a hierarchy. I understand their has to be a form of governance. Even in the animal kingdom there are hierarchies, the difference is, these are for survival of the species, not for personal gain.

This is where our species has missed the mark IMO. We have become so enveloped in capitalism and thus have become a species that would rob his/her Mother to get ahead. Instead of working to better the species we're focused on filling our pockets. Which will eventually be to our demise as history has shown multiple times in the past.

[edit on 5/15/2010 by UberL33t]




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
It really has nothing to do with the actual "Ownership" of land, as it's obvious no one can literally own the land.

It has more to do with owning the rights of use and access to that land. This is not a new concept in terms of the animal kingdom. Specific areas are lived in, hunted on, and protected from outside groups by many animals and by humans.

In short, the rights are what are owned, not the physical land itself. This goes for nations, localities, companies, individuals, partnerships, etc.

This creates structure.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by KrazyJethro]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
"
Ownership of property (land or otherwise) is an illusion. I am 99.9% positive you won't be taking it with you when you "go"."

I may not be able to take it with me, but I can leave it to my family and give them a better start in life. Your argument is false. Even primitive Indians had ownership of areas of land. Don't take my word for it. Look it up and you will see.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
S&F
Total agree with the OP.

We claim the right over other humans to live on and exploit an area of land for a very, very, very short period of time. But we own the land in the same way an eyebrow mite owns us.

That said, as far as Britain is concerned, I still say it's all my land - but I'll let others use it and live here for a while. If they treat it with respect and leave it fit for those who follow


[edit on 15-5-2010 by Essan]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ohioriver
 




Even primitive Indians had ownership of areas of land

Please define "ownership"...

NM, allow me:


own·er·ship
[oh-ner-ship]
–noun
1.
the state or fact of being an owner.
2.
legal right of possession; proprietorship.


Pray tell, under what authority can anyone claim ownership of something that wasn't theirs to begin with. If this is the case, then true ownership belongs to the one celled microbial life forms that first inhabited this planet. Ownership IS an illusion. Legal right of possession? It is a figment, because the ruling authorities that decide that you "own" anything has just as much of a right to decide that as the one celled microbial life form does. Just because we have a few more cells and can think doesn't change the fact that we have no right to claim ownership of any portion of this Earth. Period.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 




the rights are what are owned
...
This creates structure.


That's the problem, the one's that are deciding how it is to be structured. Consider this analogy:

Your car, you are in possession of it, and for all intensive purposes have ownership of it. However, as I am giving you the right to this ownership, I will only allow you to go 20 MPH in this car, you aren't allowed to run the A/C at anytime even though it is available, and you can only make right turns. Extremely obscure analogy yes, but none the less, if it were reality, how many people would be walking as opposed to buying a car? After all it is something that is in your possession, who has the right to "structure" how you use it?

Where you'll have those that support the aforementioned structure, you'll also have those that vehemently resist it. Structure is in the eye of the beholder, and until we all see eye to eye, there will never truly be any structure....ever!



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Maybe in a perfect world humanity could share every luscious green acre on this planet. But alas, man is inherently greedy and corruptible. If I own a bike, and you own the same bike. You can't steal my bike, because it is also your bike. I believe this mindset was brought into a Dutch "city bike" type system where you could travel around towns on these publicly shared bikes where you could pick up at a docking point, and where you would park it up at your destination at another docking point. This sense of public ownership saw thefts of these bikes at an extremely minimal level, because why would you steal a bike that is already yours? If only this system could be applied to the rest of the world.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by dPD89
 




If only this system could be applied to the rest of the world.


Indeed, sadly though, our species won't grasp this concept any time soon as long as this is our mentality:




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
so your so enlightend please explane how your system should work? you use the seagulls thing in your point but if all land is everyones then we will all be like them going after the best spot and then that spot will be destroyed.

so go on enlighten me how we should build utopia?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Aceofclubs
 


I have a feeling you're expecting my reply to contain something specific. I sense a loaded question there. I can type for days on what "I" think would be the perfect Utopia. The concept of utopia is limited to personal opinion. As the poster mentioned above "in a perfect world". The same applies, it's one's own opinion as to what a perfect world would be.

For a true Utopia to exist everyone and I mean everyone would have to think exactly the same. Single minded with no individualism. As free-willed thinkers I don't think there will ever be a "perfect world". On the other hand, there are a great deal of petty differences that we embellish and hold onto. If we could squash a lot of those differences and come to some common understanding, then I don't think we'd have any where near the problems we do with one another as a whole.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by UberL33t
 


if you can`t own land and all land is every ones then you have no security and things get worse from there. if i pick a acer or two and work that land it has to belong to me or why would i bother when some guy could sit and watch me then pick my crops or decide he want to use this land to keep some animals on so thay ruin my work or eat it

bottom line is its the only reasonable way to do things in my view. i just wanted to know if you had thought about it enough to have a workable alternate system. most who think like your OP don`t think it through just the NICE bit were everyone gets a free ride, it can`t happen. someones always gonna take advantage of the situation and abuse others. so pick a system thats better



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Well I know what your philosophical construct is alluding to but there will never be such a situation as you would hope for.

We still live in a world where a large number of rational people still except a "royal'"family and give them all the respect they think they deserve.

I personally don't get the ownership of land thing myself.I just think it is weird.

Other property that you can take with you I understand.

Mankind is a weird animal in that aspect.

On a last note,you did use the words to a song that was written by a socialist/ communist sympathizer during the depression era.

Was that on purpose?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
To the OP, does your Utopian ideal include the non ownership of ME?

Really, I want to get to the bottom of people that believe the rights to property in regards to my labor, my life, my liberty.

How much of my labor are you entitled to?

Just to start the ball rolling.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Oneolddude
 




Was that on purpose?


No, where/what was the reference in my post? For the record I am not a communist or socialist, let me get that right out there. Although a true utopia would be a combination of those two among a few others IMO.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by UberL33t
 


Another reason it isn't ours, we stole it from the Native Americans. I get sick and tired of people's self-righteous attitudes about this nation. Earlier I was watching this show on the History Channel, America - The Story of US, I nearly vomited in my mouth as they talked about noble settlers struggling to 'tame the West'. A West already occupied by the Natives we eventually subjugated and pushed to the brink of survival.

I don't like the idea of people coming here illegally either but some of the hate I see broiling for immigrants is insane and none of the reform possibilities I hear from Washington make a lick of sense.

Its one of those issues that gets a lot of blood boiling on both sides.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 




How much of my labor are you entitled to?


It would have to be an equal existence. Look, I realize that what I am suggesting has flaws and is extremely far fetched. Humans have always, have currently, and as a best guess, will always possess free will and individualism.

That, combined with a world that is a capitalist structure where money and who has the most of it is in control, will not lead to any sort of Utopian society. If anything, it strengthens the NWO'ers message that is so prevalently expressed on ATS.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Then there is not need for me to pay property tax or taxes to state or national governments. Except the fact I would be arrested if I didn't... it seems some laws are enforced more than other and I doubt I would get amnesty for my crime.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by 4ortunate1]



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join