TED Conversations

Mats Kaarbö

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

When and why did we start staking out property?

When did it all start and why? Who was the first owner of land and what was the criteria for a person to do so?

Topics: Ancient history cultural evolution education environment evolution society
+3
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    pat gilbert 50+

    • +1
    Oct 25 2012: Private property is at the cornerstone of our standard of living.

    I'm glad Mats delusions don't have much traction in most of the world. Private property made the difference between the standard of living in South America and North America. John Locke had it right Mats is a subversive.

    At 10:33 into this video

    http://www.ted.com/talks/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_prosperity.html

    • Kris Christenson

      • 0
      Oct 25 2012: Subversion is a good thing, friend. But that's a discussion for another time and place. I just felt the need to say it.

      • Comment deleted

      • thumb

        pat gilbert 50+

        • 0
        Oct 26 2012: 1
        the act of subverting : the state of being subverted; especially : a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within
        2
        obsolete : a cause of overthrow or destruction

        You are the one who said it is good. Which depends on what side of the fence you are on . The terrorists celebrated in the streets on 9/11. I look upon subversion with a jaundiced eye. Did you really mean subversion is a good thing?

        • Kris Christenson

          • +1
          Oct 26 2012: I did. The definition I found is actually "undermine the power and authority of", which is the Mac dashboard dictionary app's definition. All forms of violence are wrong, but you can undermine something in a pacifist manner very easily. This is evidenced by Thoreau, Ghandi, Martin Luther, and Martin Luther King Junior, among many others throughout history. Human beings, by our nature, are drawn by greed. There are many theories why, from Darwinism to the religious theory that we're evil because Eve ate fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. But the fact is we are drawn by greed. Part of greed is a yearn for power. So it follows that most people in power were brought there by greed. If greed is a bad thing, which is a standpoint I can't imagine a contention for, then most people in power have their power for immoral means. Therefore, if we do not question them then there's no one to stand in the way of their greed. If we don't subvert authority then society will fall victim the greed of the few.
          As far as property goes, is the status quo not developed by the greed of man? Why else would you claim ownership then for selfish gain? Then it follows that the concept of property comes from greed. So how can the concept of private property be morally good?
          The terrorists on 9/11 celebrated an act of violence because they (being people who chose, for whatever reason, to give up individual, rational thought) believed that God hates America and the beliefs by which it is governed. They were (most likely) swayed by the arguments of a selfish madman. This type of subversion is very different from pacifist subversion. I, based on an ethical grounding, would never choose to harm a human being to further a cause, only to protect the life of another human being. But yet I choose to actively subvert the powers that be. Is that terrorism?

      • Comment deleted

        • Kris Christenson

          • 0
          Oct 26 2012: Where did you get the term subversive pacifist from? What I'm talking about is anarcho-pacifism. Google it! It's a beautiful thing, if a tid bit idealistic. But if we're not at least a little idealistic then how can anything get any better? I haven't watched you're video yet (I will presently) but I can tell you now it's anything but infallible and if you think my argument is "crap" then it's best to present a formal argument. Otherwise, you're expecting me to adhere to doctrine, which is what the nazi's would do. I still don't understand how you can't see that subversion doesn't require violence though. I do it daily, as did the men I listed in my last post. Also, the velvet revolution ended socialism in Czechoslovakia without violence. Were they not subversive?
      • thumb

        pat gilbert 50+

        • 0
        Oct 26 2012: I was looking for a yes or no?

        • Kris Christenson

          • +1
          Oct 26 2012: Yes, subversion is a good thing. I stand by that. If we do not question authority then we'll ultimately be the victims of it. Though from a moral standpoint we should do so without the use of violence.
      • thumb

        pat gilbert 50+

        • 0
        Oct 26 2012: Gandhi nor Martin Luther King were subversives by anyone's perspective. I goggled your term, anarcho-pacifism, it is not subversive.

        Have a nice day

        • Kris Christenson

          • 0
          Oct 26 2012: How do you figure? Martin Luther King Jr. was fighting against the standardized notion that black people are inferior to whites. When you fight against standards you are being subversive. If that isn't subversive then the standpoint being presented here certainly isn't. Also, did you watch your video? The data they presented showed that the west (who are capitalist and use private property) first came to prominence and then the east (specifically China, who are communist and do not have private property) have come to prominence since then. If Private property was the reason that the west is superior then shouldn't we still be ahead since we still have private property and they still don't? Also, I approached this from an ethical standpoint, which you have yet to contest. Further, anarcho-pacifism is quite subversive as we challenge the standard notion that a government is required for society to exceed. Even by your narrow definition, anracho-pacifism is subversive as we seek to eliminate the necessity for government. In order to do this all governments would need be overthrown.
      • thumb

        pat gilbert 50+

        • 0
        Oct 26 2012: "anracho-pacifism" is that a pacifist towards spiders?

        • Kris Christenson

          • 0
          Oct 26 2012: That would be arachno, not anarcho. If you're going to evade my argument and resort to poking fun at some of the technical terms than at least do it intelligently. Do you truly even believe your standpoint? If so then why are you afraid to put forth any kind of real argument for it?
        • thumb

          bristol ozturgut

          • 0
          Oct 27 2012: Hey Pat, that was uncalled for. Kris, at this point, the debate has dissolved.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.