slowmutant wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
What really justifies ownership? Should other people suffer so others can hoard possessions and land they don't really need.
No. Ideally, the planet's wealth & resources would be distributed evenly.
If I buy something, it belongs to me only insofar as I have purchased it. When the white man first came to North America and "bought" the ancestral homeland of our Native peoples, was there a legitimate change of ownership? I think not, seeing as how it was an offer the Indians literally couldn't refuse.
If you buy something do you really check its origin? Do you know who was involved in it production? Maybe it could have been made with child labour/sweat shop.
I'm not an idealist, but there is problem with the no steal rule. Even legitimately the idea of ownership and value resets the balance of things. It can make people poor by association.
Khoisian tribes in Africa might not be considered poor, they won't stave so long as the Nambib desert and surrounding savannah is not destroyed. They are hunter gathers exclusively, no agriculture. They do trade with Bantu tribes. They don't have money per say, then just make Jewellery ostrich eggs, etc which they have done for centuries. As they are very good at finding food either hunting meat or vegetables, they actually spend the majority of their time relaxing. They cost the countries they live in nothing and maintain the habitats.