[Diggers350] concepts of land ownership and protecting the biodiversity of the land
vapid.ness at yahoo.co.uk
Tue Nov 23 23:17:01 GMT 2010
There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding here. The
criticism of TLIO here is based on a mistaken interpretation of what
TLIO is about, and the criticism is based on that faulty interpretation of TLIO and the concept of common ownership, rather than anything TLIO or the diggers 350 list is actually about.
The level of debate is a bit like the kind of comments you get on
Indymedia from people claiming to be in the police, or creationists
posting on science sites. I have not seen anything about people wanting
to buy land and 'give it away'.
If there is disagreement about the basic concept of common ownership it
might be more productive for someone who feels that way to discuss the
issues regarding land management in another forum rather than constantly
challenging the fundamental precept of this one.
Implying that Israeli occupation of Palestine is equivalent to common
ownership is mistaken, foolish and insulting to people here who have
worked in support of Palestinian land rights, as well as the many
Palestinians who support collective ownership. Subsequent arguments are
based on this faulty assertion and so are no more sound than the idea
(Re: responding to OT or confrontational messages; In future I shall desist from debating
on who the bridge belongs to next time someone asks who is
trip-trapping over it, or at least not feed the person saying it belongs
To quote Lilia,
"their statements are questionable and therefore ridiculous,
hang on ... questionable = ridiculous ... erm, in a pigs eye it does!
"in the wider international context of the debate about how the 'environment' and 'biodiversity of life on this planet' should effectively be managed in the future in a way that is equitable and fair for all, including landowners, whose rightful access to their own land is being exploited or abused."
TLIO does not support private ownership of land (like a person can, say, own a car) because land is a free gift to the whole of mankind. Without respect of persons. [editor]
--- On Tue, 23/11/10, Lilia Patterson <liliapatterson at hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Lilia Patterson <liliapatterson at hotmail.com>
Subject: [Diggers350] concepts of land ownership and protecting the biodiversity of the land
To: diggers350 at yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, 23 November, 2010, 12:32
there seems to be some discussion about the difference between ownership and responsibility of ownership and also freedom of distribution and also of management practices towards different possessions that can be either owned or shares.
Can I remind some people that these concepts are all different and mutually exclusive and also just because someone might say that they want to own some land and then give it away for free - does not necessarily mean that giving land away for free is the best way for the biodiversity of the planet to be improved.
Personally I would state that promoting beneficial land management practices is a million times more beneficial than the concept of promoting for land or other resources to be given away for free.
I would also state that it would actually be grossly criminally negligent for members of TLIO to continue to promote the confused concept that giving away land and resources for free is a positive ideal. It most definitely is not.
If one would like to consider for example - that the land and mineral resources of the Palestinian people of Gaza have just been taken for 'free' by the Israeli government, through use of military intervention of the Israeli navy against both Palestinian and international citizens, then this would be an 'example' of a collective group of people taking 'land and its resources for free' and then re-distributing them as they see fit, against the consent of the original landowners.
This is against international laws and the acts performed by the Israeli military and navy constitute war crimes.
Therefore I would really suggest that if TLIO wants to continue in the future as a 'credible' organisation, that some people consult 'lawyers' in relation to 'land rights of ownership and management policies' in relation to how to effectively promote better ecological systems to help more healthy lifestyles for people on this planet as a credible part of the environmental movement in the future, otherwise their statements are questionable and therefore ridiculous, in the wider international context of the debate about how the 'environment' and 'biodiversity of life on this planet' should effectively be managed in the future in a way that is equitable and fair for all, including landowners, whose rightful access to their own land is being exploited or abused.
More information about the Diggers350