Of Property

So what are the criteria we use to determine property?

Here’s some of them:

Do they have it now, or did they have it at one time?
This is more of a duty ethics question.

If someone physically possesses or occupies something in the present, we’re more likely to regard it as theirs.
If someone frequently physically possesses or occupies something, we’re still more likely to regard it as theirs, but less than the above.
If someone has physically possessed or occupied something in the past, we’re still more likely to regard it as theirs, but less than the above.

How did they come to acquire it?
This is also more of a duty ethics question.

If someone built something, exchanged something, received something, or found something, we’re more likely to regard it as theirs.

But if someone took something from someone by force, fraud, unfairly or without their consent, we’re more likely to regard it as not theirs.

What good can come from them having it?
This is more of a consequentialist question.

If someone can use something to fulfill our needs as an individual or a group, we’re more likely to regard it as theirs.
If someone can use something to fulfill our desires as an individual or a group, we’re still more likely to regard it as theirs, but less than the above.
If someone needs something, we’re still more likely to, but less than the above.
If someone desires something, we’re still more likely to, but less than the above.

How able and willing are they to fight and die for it?
This is more of a pragmatic question.

Who and what determines?
This is more of a psychosocial question.

The more the or a political or religious authority states x belongs to someone.
The more people state x belongs to someone (democracy).
The more social convention states x belongs to someone.
The more our feelings suggest x belongs to someone.
The more our thoughts suggest x belongs to someone.

Society uses all the above to determine what belongs to someone, but societies and individuals emphasize some of these reasons over others.
When one or more of these reasons are conflicting, people will go with what they believe is the lesser of two evils.
And of course people can be very selfish, are overtly, or more often than not covertly biased towards themselves and their ingroup.

So what about you or your society?
Which of the above do you or your society emphasize in determining property?
Or do you or they use something else to determine it?
Sometimes we play games to determine what belongs to who, like gambling.
Can you think of more things we use?

Property is based upon belief, faith. You believe you own something. You believe you own your house, your car, your shoes. You believe that you own yourself.

This belief can be turned into doubt. To steal everything somebody you merely convince him that he owns none of it.

Right, property is subjective. That being said, we have property instincts, which vary from person-person, a natural sense of what’s mine and yours, and then we can either abstract these instincts into a principle or principles, for the sake of consistency and the improvement of our lives as individuals and/or as a society, or we can just leave them as they are, and do as we please.

No matter how you slice it, the idea of property is backed by force. No matter what justifications or reasons, there is always a man holding a big stick at the end of it.

Agreed, whatever your values or lack thereof, if you want to get things done, you have to back up your will with power.

If you can easily convince, or force, people to do as you like, or take from them, then you have a different sense of property than others.

Some people see property as more ‘permanent’, others more ‘temporal’. Those who have weaker beliefs, are more willing to give up things, at least they say so.

But when push comes to shove, and people really do come to take, then people realize what they’re willing (or not) to fight for.

Like a bully taking lunch money on the playground. The money belongs to him, because of the threat of force, and willingness to fight.

He gets away with it as long as authorities (teachers and principal) continue to allow such behavior, or such behavior goes unnoticed, people turn a blind-eye to it.

Or until a few of the kids gang together to beat the bully senseless. Outnumber an opponent and he will often retreat.

youtube.com/watch?v=sepPeBHIm_4
Came across this video recently. Not sure if I’m ready to dive head on into this agenda 21 can of worms, but I am seeing the same trends she is seeing, specifically in regards to property regulations, and apparent aims at population controls. (Now, if I see that reproductive rights explicitly become a privilege reserved only for the few (elite), I might actually be convinced it’s all true).

Another agenda…

Property = that which is under your control.

I can use this pencil any way I want, so it’s my property. Someone comes along and steals it from me; it’s no longer my property. I steal it back from them and it’s my property once again. And so on.

A child may scream “THAT’S MY PROPERTY!!! GIVE IT BACK TO ME!!!1” but in reality it no longer is and the child is merely clinging onto what was in the past.

People may give you some property if they want to but they can also take it back if they decide to.

In the USA, the government owns all land properties and people pay property taxes to rent the land.

I think that’s how it is pretty much everywhere else.

That’s a big can of worms to explore, Wendy, and a lot of dots to connect on your own, too.
(Also, because Natural News is primarily fear-based news source, I’d make a practice of taking its claims with a little grain of salt, if only on that account)

Then you don’t see the ugly side of Agenda 21 coming to fruition, that the lady in your linked video was expressing legitimate concerns that are actually happening and relative to the progression of Agenda 21’s underbelly?

That 2030 Agenda is a big can of worms, but much of the translational material is already either widespread or slowly spreading in occurrences. Care to discuss any parts of 1-17? This is the corporate global agenda rolled out as innocuous communism.

So, no private individuals own any land, only governments do. What property does that leave us? A vehicle and personal possessions that one can carry in a protectionist manner?

I’d have to start from the very beginning. Read and study the original text and all the people involved in it, and go from there, and then make my own conclusions. But it would be a big undertaking just to follow the footsteps and various leads. There are too many questions. Is it always a duck if you see something walking and quacking like one? What if here is an alternative explanation? Where is “hard” evidence chain? You can translate anything into anything if you will it to, and if there’s a need present in some populations to believe in a particular conclusion. So, for now, I will consider it a possibility, but won’t believe it until I’m personally conviced through analyzing enough evidence on my own.
(And you get minus one point on the trust factor for using fear mongering natural news as the source of your information).

Okay, it is over the top taken as a whole (one subtracted), but some of Adams points aren’t so far fetched. And that site isn’t one I frequent, it popped up in a search for Agenda 21…depressingly amusing though.

Okay, I will start with this guy, supposedly the father of the agenda 21 (correct me if I’m wrong). I must say, his bio reads like an incredible fairy tale story (from dirt to billionaire to U.N.; notice the dates).
(I have seen such incredible bios elsewhere, mostly of shady politicians).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong
youtube.com/watch?v=fhkxC1Q2FNU

Wiki~

At 18 yrs. old this high school drop out was invited to join the UN before he even had his first big job at 19 yrs. old. How would a nobody kid have a connection to a high level UN official? It does sound fishy. It doesn’t mention what he did after he dropped out of HS at 14 yrs. old until 18 yrs. old to survive and land a job in the UN. Mafia maybe…odd jobs like his father…hence priming in New York…ah, Long Island is where he was stationed in the UN, Lake Success, Long Island, New York. Crime syndicate headquarters perfect place to school a streetwise kid, expand affairs into Canada. I know my imagination works overtime.

Those “property taxes” are paid to protect, to fund the military, without which, another army would come and take your land.

Nothing is free, everything has costs.

You’re not paying to rent. Keep that in mind, twit. You’re paying to defend.