Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 6190786" data-attributes="member: 19675">You keep using that word, but I don't think you're using it properly.  There is a definite, logical reason behind laws that allow and protect property rights, borne out in hundreds of years of economic data.Nothing in societal properly rights laws prevents one from discounting, sharing or even giving away property or sources of wealth.Not all that different, really.Even in basic tribal societies, there are concepts of ownership.  For example, while many Native American tribes had no rules about owning land as an individual, they did have a concept of tribal ownership of territory, as well rules concerning personal property and theft thereof.Inuit near the Bering Strait have a word, "kunlangeta" which refers to someone who has comitted any of a great number of offenses- including murder and theft.  Kuniangeta were supposedly tolerated until they could be shoved into the icy waters to drown.  And you don't get a punishment for "theft" unless there is a corresponding concept of ownership.Despite not having words that directly correspond to "ownership" in English, the Maori legal system clearly noted hatsuch a concept existed: custom generally accorded the owner of property the right to punish the thief with violence and even death, though non-violent punishments were also permitted.  Beyond that, the Maori custom was that such goods as a person owned passed to his descendants.</blockquote>

Verification