That's a bit confusing, Ludwig.

>>It is not just violation of the law, or the moral code which is immoral. There is surely a fundamental moral aspect to the formulation of that code in the first instance<<

There is indeed a moral aspect to the formulation of a moral code. I would have thought that to be self-evident.

But if you meant that there is a moral aspect to the formulation of laws, I would have to agree with that also. Hence my earlier reference to those countries' laws that did not permit property ownership. You could make a case - as many have before you - that ownership of property is an intrinsically bad thing.

But once again, that is a totally separate issue to your assertion that "[we] can’t have the right to do whatever we like with our land", with which statement, as you know, I am in full agreement.

We have laws that extend to the sorts of behaviours - polluting the land in a manner that adversely affects others, for example - that have a distinctly moral flavour about them. But unless you deem the ownership of land itself to be immoral, you are left with only those behaviours to complain about. Just like the little old lady and the car - she can complain about the driver's behaviour in running her over, but she can't protest the driver's right to own the car in the first place.

Dear Ludwig and Jardine,

Your responses demonstrate that the word 'owner' is ambiguous.

I was hoping to find a definition of 'owner' with both meaning and substance, but alas, Jardine's definition has meaning but no substance while Ludwig's has substance but not meaning.

Jardine's has no substance because while it would be nice to have such ownership, it doesn't exist in reality since nothing on earth can confer that kind of ownership on a person. In heaven perhaps, but not on earth.

Ludwig's has no meaning because it is fleeting as quicksand: what a person can do with their land, according to this definition, can vary as the wind turns and the mood of the public and their legislators.

Meanwhile, what recourse has our poor farmer or hermit who wakes to the sound of rumbling bulldozers, their life in ruins?

“We can’t have the right to do whatever we like with our land for all sorts of reasons. “

Why not? That’s not a reason.

“Obviously we don’t have the right to undertake illegal activities on our land”


That’s only valid in saying what the law *is*.

But here the issue is what the law *should be*: because the original article was about politicians giving moral purpose or direction for the nation.

“It could also be argued that it is amoral to undertake activities which are not accepted as fair and reasonable by the wider community but which are not actually illegal.”

Why? You haven’t given any reason.

What would be an example of a valid restriction on a landowner’s freedom to use his own land, based on third parties’ opinions of what is “fair and reasonable”? (Please don’t give reasons that it would impinge on the personal or property rights of others: that proves my argument not yours.)

You are not “the common” so the common good is not yours to know any more than it is mine.

The deep structure of your argument from the common good is only this:
“In my opinion, people shouldn’t be allowed to use soil so as to deplete it.
“Why not?”
“Because it’s my opinion.”

To avoid this circularity, it’s not enough to point to negative consequences of using natural resources (e.g. depletion). You have to show how you account for the positive consequences (e.g feeding the hungry). You haven’t done that, which means, your definition of the common good goes only to your own opinion. According to your standard, all I have to do is allege “the common good” to win the argument. You are left arguing that it’s for “the common good” that people go hungry so well-fed middle class Australians can feel good about themselves for advocating socialism that they can’t rationally defend.

So … how do you account for the positive consequences?

So far you have not given any valid moral reason for the restrictions you advocate, other than agreeing with me.

It seems that we are largely in agreement. Pericles.

However…

<< ...unless you deem the ownership of land itself to be immoral, you are left with only those behaviours to complain about >>

But you can’t separate them, unless you have blind faith that the law is always 100% right and that any violation of it is inherently immoral. You may well feel that there are aspects of the law are immoral. Most of us do, yes?

It is complex as to just what the ownership of land entails. Just exactly what you do own and what you can do on your land is fraught with moral difficulty. In all probability, you will find something if not many things that you disagree with regarding the legal restrictions.

You could indeed consider the ownership of land, overall or in some circumstances, to be immoral. Or you could consider some of the aspects of the ownership of land to be immoral.

So...

<< Violation on one hand. Ownership on the other. Two separate issues. >>

No I don’t think so. It is all totally intertwined.

<< …the little old lady… can complain about the driver's behaviour in running her over, but she can't protest the driver's right to own the car in the first place. >>

Oh yes she can! If the driver was so dangerous and irresponsible as to run her over, depending on the exact circumstances, she could well have every right to complain about the morality of him owning a car or a drivers licence!

Dear Ludwig,

I am relieved that you do not equate law with morality!

Can you also acknowledge that popular/common-societal-views are also distinct from morality?

<<If the driver was so dangerous and irresponsible as to run her over, depending on the exact circumstances, she could well have every right to complain about the morality of him owning a car or a drivers licence!>>

Nobody needs a license to own a car - only to take a car on public roads. If you do have such license, the car need not even be owned by you. However, in most cases where little old ladies are run over by cars, the car is found to be stolen and the driver unlicensed.

It reminds me of the car we had in kindi, in the middle of the sand patch: it could no longer be driven anywhere, otherwise I would happily run over that little old lady in the roll of a kindi-teacher.

<<It is all totally intertwined.>>

A sword, anyone?
(referring to Alexander the Great and the Gordian knot)

To cut it short, if you are looking for an answer to the question "Is ownership moral?", a similar-in-nature question would be:

"Is a gay Anglican priest allowed to marry his widow's sister?"

<< Your responses demonstrate that the word 'owner' is ambiguous. >>

Yes Yuyutsu, ownership is not a straightforward concept. As it concerns land, it is indeed quite complex as to just what is owned, both in a physical way and in terms of usage or rights.

Even though we may own the surface of the land, we certainly don’t own the right to do whatever we like with it. Far from it.

And perhaps we don’t own the land surface all that conclusively either. If we don’t pay our rates or keep it lawfully maintained, some jurisdictions might take it off us.

<< …Jardine's definition has meaning but no substance while Ludwig's has substance but not meaning. >>

Well, Jardine’s comments seem to always lack substance and meaning!

And um, I’m not sure how my comments could have substance but not meaning. ( :>/

<< …what a person can do with their land, according to this definition, can vary as the wind turns and the mood of the public and their legislators. >>

I don’t know about that! I think most things are generally pretty constant over long periods of time.

<< Meanwhile, what recourse has our poor farmer or hermit who wakes to the sound of rumbling bulldozers, their life in ruins? >>

But that never happens! Landowners are always consulted or at least warned well in advance of the miners’ intentions. Maybe the level of consultation and compensation is inadequate sometimes, but it is not as if miners and the state just steam-roll over the top of landowners in the middle of the night.