Do we actually own anything in the eyes of nature?
In the eyes of nature? No. Ownership is a concept derived from and made possible by civilization, i.e. the parting with nature to form complex societies.
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
Actually we're just stewards of what is in our possession. What we do with it & how we've possessed it goes along way in revealing what kind of person we are. But at the end of the day, we take out of this world nothing that we've stored up on earth.
What, like scientific laws? I'm assuming you mean natural law though, which is an entirely different concept (and not really connected with "nature" other than in contrast to positive law). So "natural law" is only understood in the context of civilization and man-made law.
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
Saying that "nature" is conscious would imply that rocks and trees, etc. are aware, which is nonsense. There are conscious beings, humans and other animals, but they are specific entities, not nature itself.
What about the force? It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
The only force that surrounds and affects me is govt force, and most of it is exploitative.
Paranoid you are. :yoda voice:
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
Nationalizing resources really has nothing to do with "From each according to his ability." Natural resources are finite, the famous ideal of communism according to Marx was only possible in the future of super-abundance where labor was "not only a means of life, but life's prime want." I'd argue that common natural resources is more in keeping with ancient Anglo-Saxon liberties than Communism - see the Charter of the Forest in 1217 (linked with the Magna Carta).
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
The most effective and absolute guarantee of waste you can find is government control, so all the more reason to have the government controlling fewer, or none, of those natural resources.
Nationalizing resources really has nothing to do with "From each according to his ability."
I think you are wrong.
Natural Resources have been around for a long time. The process of utilizing those resources is what creates wealth. Centralized control of resources has been tried and is being tried. Most of the oil resources are owned by various governments. In spite of the vast wealth, the people in those countries are usually not better off than the people in less centralized economies
Strong person diminishes weak person's ability to access natural resources. Weak person needs a government to help him out. Is this somehow unfair? I realize it doesn't always work this way, but this is the gist of *why* we need a government to help manage the resources. That there are reasons that a government shouldn't act in certain ways is not an excuse to exclude government from the process altogether. And the first sentence is rather generic and comes in many forms including depletion of clean water supply.
Linear Mode
