here are couple lines that express things fairly succinctly:
"wheels within wheels in a spiral array
a pattern so grand and complex
time after time we lose sight of the way
our causes can't see their affects."
the notion that "it's my land, so i can do whatever i want" leads to the
trap alluded to above. "whatever i want" and whatever you do affects a
myriad of other things, systems, and persons. in "doing" things to "my"
land, i need to be considerate and mindful of the consequences. how
will what i do affect others? what will i affect? without a basic
consideration of others, the "neighborhood" (however you wish to
define it, be it block, community, village, town, city, county, state,
country, hemisphere, globe, solar system, etc,) becomes a very grim and
hostile place.
the fact of the matter is that you CAN'T do "whatever you want" on
"your" land. societal, cultural, moral, and ethical norms place limits on
what you can do on your land. in the extreme, you can't murder persons
on your land simply because it is "my land and i can do what i want." by
the same token, you can't build a tire pile and burn it on a city lot, you
can't endeavor to open a nuclear repository on your quarter section
simply because "its my land."
i am not arguing against development and resource usage. i am saying
that before anybody acts, they need to exhibit the responsibility to
consider the reaction. ask yourself the question: "how will what you
are proposing to do affect the systems and persons around me?" "how
can i achieve my goals and mitigate negative affects on others?"
consider social costs, they are very real, in addition to economic costs.
think on it hard, then act responsibly.
>>> Diane Prorak <prorak@uidaho.edu> 03/10/95 09:11am >>>
Re: land ownership
I'll start by being philosophical. How can you really "own" land? You
are only here a short time and the land will go on long after you are
dead. Therefore, you can only manage it for a short time.
The problem I see with land "ownership" (and therefore its treatment as
a commodity) is that people feel they can do whatever they want to the
land. Since what they do affects others (we can't all live upstream) in
the present and most certainly affects others in the future, this is a
problem. We need to consider land "stewardship" rather than ownership
-- taking the best care of this land while we are here, reaping some
benefit from the land while being careful to consider the other people,
species (both now and in the future) who depend on "your" land.
Property lines are a human creation that generally don't fit with the way
nature divides the land. Your fenceline may divide an animal's natural
habitat in two.
Yes, we are rather in a commune. We and many other species depend
on the Earth. We're all in this together. Therefore, I think I have a right to
demand that you are responsible with your treatment of the land so that I
and future people have clean water, clean air and the plants and
animals necessary for survival of our ecosystem.
Anyway, when land is treated as a commodity, with little thought to what
I've said above, it leads to an emphasis on gaining the highest possible
economic benefit from the land, rather than considering one's
reponsibility of stewardship. We need to have a land ethic that puts
more value on land than just money.
Diane Prorak
On Wed, 8 Mar 1995, WIEST JAMES ANDREW wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 1995, Kenton wrote:
> > > "*Land is a commodity to be bought and sold like any other.
> > > > "*Unrestricted automobility is a basic American right.
> > > > "* The largest possible house on the largest possible lot is
analogous
> > to the 'pursuit of happiness' that comes after life and liberty.
> > > > --The Boise Weekly, Feb. 23-March 1, 1995, page 5
> > > Hi All,
> > Perhaps someone would care to enlighten me as to why these
statements, > while perhaps simplistic, are not valid? Are we a
commune where the land > belongs to everyone and others get to "vote"
on what I can do, when, > where, and with whom on my own property?
Or are *private* property rights > passe'? While our actions are "voted"
on by *criminal* and civil law, > should true "ownership" of land be a
crime? What about cars? Who will > decide who can have one and for
what reasons? How big may we make our > houses, and who decides
this? When does this line of logic end? > Totalitarianism perhaps? Just
asking...
> > > Best,
> > Andy
> >