[humanmarkup-comment] RE: conflict transformation

[paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

The communication follows the threads in categorical abstraction:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/categoricalAbstraction/message/38

and interculturalinsights

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/interculturalinsights/message/3832


***


Of course the notion of ownership varies from country to country, and there
are many ways for the ownership issues to be beneficial and many ways that
these issues of ownership can be subverted.

Public good and corporate good seems a clear distinction in a democracy
where money is not controling the politics (elections).  This is way campain
finance issues are so important and why the up going court battles are
critical to the future of the American democracy.

From complexity theory one has some intellectual leverage on the issue of
ownership - since absolute ownership is absolute reductionism in several
interesting ways.  So the argument that absolute ownership be held in the
hands of "levels of organization" seems powerful.  Individuals can own,
States can own, and Nations can own... but also corporations can own.
Ownership implies rights and responsibilities.  This is where the battle
must be pitched against pure capitalism and pure democracy.  Ownership has
to accept a proper level of responsibility, and often the accepting of this
responsiblity reduces profits.  The duality is between rights of the center
(endophysics) and responsiblity to the environment (exophysics.)

So the ownership of the public land by a corporation to re-novate a hotel,
must have responsibilities.  There also must be a level of organization so
that the ownership of the public land by a corporation is not only by one
corporation but by a class of corporations.

The rights and responsiblities are then defined as right and
responsibilities of the class.

I also have big problems with allowing a corporation to have the right to
own "public" land.  If there is only a charter of the corporation that
dirves profits.  However, if the charter is to own for the benefit of the
public - properly defined to be a class of person - including those not
receiving direct compensation; then these may be a good.

See the Charter of the BCNGroup

http://www.bcngroup.org/admin/Charter.html

as an example of a "public" corporation that has well stated
responsibilities to the human community.



-----Original Message-----

   Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 07:28:26 -1000
   From: Barbara Pirie <bjpirie@aloha.com>
Subject: conflict transformation


>Ownership of property also
>settles a question from a certain viewpoint, in spite of the history where
>one might see that this imposition of viewpoint has left part of the moral
>reality unsettled.  Clearly this type of settlement is important and one
has
>a hard time seeing how an economic system can function without the absolute
>imposition of ownership or land.  However, does this mean that all land
must
>be "owned".  What about shared religious sites?

Land ownership is strongly tied to an assumption tied to capitalism - and
one brand of capitalism.   There are creative options for these components
but the large financial institutions and corporations tell us individual
ownership of land is the only option and this is supported and internalized
into larger cultural systems.   Other countries and cultures have different
options.   This tight tie/couple of land ownership to 'economic
development' is now moving in an additional direction.   Hawai'i and other
political entities are now designating some private property as 'public' in
order to transfer these properties to a larger company for their personal
economic advantage (not for the public good).  The reason given for this
land designation transfer is that the financial institutions insist on who
has land title for loans to 'build/renovate/expand' (the current example in
Hawai'i is to renovate a hotel).   This has moved the cultural option from
land as a resource for a multigenerational group to a resource for one
individual/economic group for the economic advantage of that group over
others.    So I think we need to understand that we have been sold an
assumption and it is not absolute.

If the above reference was to Israeli settlements, this assumption moves us
into war (nothing new - many wars are over who controls land) that today
could result in the extinction of all of us - a high price that might not
be worth it.

Re: shared religious sites - these are an option - just as public parks and
other public spaces are an option.    We just have to expand who the group
is that is considered to be the 'public'.   What is shared by these groups
to enable such shared space to become a reality?  Even fear of nuclear war
might be a driver to an agreement on shared space - but then again,
religious values with tied group identity run deep.

There is a small group looking at international cities/sites issues but
mostly we fight over strips of land rather than share them - the
competition (win/lose) option rather than the cooperation option.

Barbara