What gives humans the right to own land?

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (64 posts)

78
Rod Raineyposted 11 years ago
I am aware of Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states “Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.” And “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”, but what has given anyone the right to sell or allocate land in the first place?
reply report
1. 76
  Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The rich own most of the good land, which is the golden rule now, for most part.
  
  In Belize every citizen is granted land, and if he/she sells it, that's it, no more.
  
  I think being homeless in cold countries, ought to be a crime against the laws of nature.
  reply report
2. 74
  someonewhoknowsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  In my opinion no "one" private person or private group should "OWN" LAND.
  O - ne
  W - ith
  N - one
  
  Land should be "Held in Trust" only by publically accountable Individuals who have to answer to all the rest of the people living and or working on the land in question.
  reply report
3. 71
  rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What this country lives and breaths on, MONEY!
  reply report
4. 64
  PhoenixVposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Property tax. For people that live in a rural area. Then some trash pickup maybe. If you live in town they charge for sewer and water and probably lots more.
  
  30 years ago you could camp for free. Now the same places charge 10 bux for a night. To fish you have to have licenses etc etc until its cheaper to eat at Red Lobster than fish in a lake.
  
  I saw a large group of people were parking in an area 30 miles oustide of a city and were parking their vehicles and car pooling. It was a desolate area that had large amounts of space with lots of gravel right off an interstate, but they didnt like that either so they harrassed them away from doing that.
  
  One time I saw 3 police cars forcing some bicycle travelers out of the tent they had pitched quite a distance off the side of a highway.
  
  There is no such thing as ownership. They only sometimes allow homeless people to hang out under bridges for awhile, because there is no money in it for anyone to get rid of them.
  
  We are just slaves. Some of us got a cell phones and TVs, but slave we are to a worldwide, tax and interest ponzi scheme where people at the top of the pyramid make out like bandits and stick us with the bill.
  reply report
  46
  Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I like your position on the matter. If you give me a home anywhere, I lose my freedom. If you take away my right to make my home anywhere, I lose my right.
  reply report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Pretty much sums it up.
  
  Property tax and maintenance. Government needs caretakers for their properties.
  
  There is no actual private property, otherwise , how could government confiscate it on a whim?
  
  You can sure be the registered tenant though!
  reply report
  74
  someonewhoknowsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  This person knows what 's going down and it, isn't those in charge.
  As long as we the people allow such things such as you mention here to go on without fighting it in court or in the public arena somehow with our pocket books when that opportunity presents itself or we make our representatives accountable to - " We The People" and not just allow those we Elect to just give lip service to - "We The Peoples" concerns.
  This only happens with participation in the system other than simply voting occurs.
  One of my concerns is when I hear any politician refer to the people as "Customer's" as if they run a business and we the people are "Just Customer's" with limited rights to "Customer Service" rather than stockholder's in a corporation. A poor example though of, " The right to control those who - "We The People" put in charge of what - "We The People" have invested in our government during our lifetimes.
  reply report
5. 60
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What gives humans the right to tell other humans they have no right to own land?
  reply report
  78
  Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If it can be determined that our way of life is rendering the land, the Earth, our one and only life support system impotent for future generations, then our ways must change.
  reply report
6. 60
  TrawlingForHopeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Many animals have territories that they defend, even if they don't put physical boundaries on it. Humans are no different, though we could be.
  
  Our current culture doesn't allow for a more global perspective on how to distribute land and other resources. In fact, I'd daresay that we are the only species that exploits resources for personal gain, with individuals (or corporate entities) amassing more resources that they could ever use. We exploit each other as well.
  
  One day, it will stop, but we need a global culture change for that to happen. To answer your question, no one has the right to own land, per say, but it's our culture that allows it.
  reply report
95
wildernessposted 11 years ago
At it's roots, might. Might gives the right.

We've moved a little beyond that with laws and such, but it is still might. The US has the might to protect the land within our borders; that dreadful UK can't simply move in and squat, for instance.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait it was US might that prevented it. That kept Kuwaitii soil in the hands of Kuwait.
reply report
1. 76
  Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Other peoples OIL/MONEY, same thing. You think USA would help the poor in many parts of Africa and if they had no Oil.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, yes. Americans as a group are pretty giving people, and the charity that flows from the US to Africa is substantial.
  
  Would the US government attempt to solidify the countries reputation with no "compensation"? I hope not - in general the government does not belong in the charity business, playing Robin Hood with the citizen's money. Should people wish to donate to foreign countries and help they can (and do), but that is not the function of government.
  reply report
2. 78
  Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Is might right?
  reply report
  60
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Right isn't relevant in determining who is in charge. Might is, and always will be in charge. You can say, "If enough of us band together we can defeat them", but what you are really saying is "Combined we can garner enough might to defeat them". Either way, might is still in charge. All we can hope for is the might that is in charge, will be right.
  reply report
  78
  Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Does someone have to be in charge?
  reply report
  61
  Lazy Parrotposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, other wise the one with the fire power is in charge. That is what Government does, without Gov. you have chaos. The native Americans say they didn't own land, then why did the tribes fight each other over hunting rights? They simply had not advanced enough to write laws nor do math for individual ownership.
  reply report
  76
  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I thought they had a general outlook that the Great Spirit owned all. They must have had a sense of Might and Rulership Rights, if not ownership... like gangs do.
  reply report
  74
  someonewhoknowsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "Owning Land" is not the same as owning certain rights on the land!
  For example : When you "Buy" property it may have to allow government authorities and even private companies or corporations the right to service such things as meters of water gas or electricity that is provided by them to you.
  Think about it we as individuals will never have absolute control over land.
  Even over property on that land is subject to taxes and if you don't pay the taxes you will eventually lose the land.
  reply report
  76
  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Do you have to remind us?
  reply report
  76
  Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Check out the world of tiny or mini homes
  
  I got a grant for 85% weeks to build portable green tiny or mini homes most people can afford. These homes are set on lease land with a 4 season green house because cause of food can be more expensive than your rent.
  reply report
  78
  Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Also check out earthships, cob, straw bale, waddle and daub.
  We bought a 12x32 cabin for our starter home away from home. It's small enough to be considered portable which, in Kentucky gets us out from under building codes. Also in KY, if you can call your land a farm, the law is more lenient.
  reply report
  76
  Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Good idea,
  A person has to sell and move every eight years which cost as much as $50,000 in re-hocking up, moving and more taxes.
  
  Laws are easier for most part and cheap land choice are far Greater in the USA than in Canada.
  reply report
  78
  Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  We're hoping to establish a small community to wean ourselves and others from the current system (as much as humanly possible). We are shooting for it to be largely nature based, but we'll need more land for that.
  
  I think we should be teaching our children that land should be shared, not owned. "Owning" land is just an idea; the less we perpetuate the idea, the better off our species will be in the long run.
  reply report
  60
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Will your family live in a house on that land?
  
  Will the community have free use of your house since it is occupying land?
  
  Will you be okay with people setting up a picnic or all night party in your house or even right in front of a window or door, any time they want regardless of your wishes? If the land was truly shared they would not need your permission.
  reply report
  78
  Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  A home is for who ever built the home and for who ever is invited in (common courtesy). Rude people are a social matter. We should not cut off everyone because of a few idiots. They would be dealt with.
  
  As far as the land, yes the community should have free use of it with consideration for its caring capacity. I am not saying it could happen over night. An entirely new world view must be embraced before it can.
  report
  60
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If your home is private and you own it, do you not for all intent and purpose then own the land on which it sits? Even in a lease situation, for the time agreed to, you have personal control of the property within the bounds of the lease.
  
  When you boil it down, (at least for the individual property at which you reside, which is the only property most people own anyway), isn't the distinction your vision offers really just one of semantics and formality?
  report
  60
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Who decides who is an idiot that needs to be dealt with?
  Who defines idiot?
  Who defines the method of dealing with them?
  Who implements the "dealing with" process?
  Who decides who decides?
  
  I can think of many more questions, but these should suffice to initially identify who the government is in your society without a government.
  report
  76
  Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes one of the greater challeges is governing your village, it's better to start off governing yourself on a lease land with water on it first.
  
  There is only one legal eco off grid village in Canada. They are far more hooked up to the mainstream system than I am.
  
  It's taken me 10 years, just figure out many of the strangle hold legal grey areas.
  
  Good thing I've got a 85 week grant to figure out even better ways because the Goveriment in trouble if they don't have a Plan B or Plan C when sh -the hits the fan with debts. After 40 years of work service 90% of us of this this kind are either dead or dead broke already. Imagine when 100 million baby boomers go to collect pension to come, within all of North America. USA will be China's bitch.
  report
  78
  Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You would not own the land your house sits on, but it must be understood that no one asked to be born into this world and that we all need a place to live.
  
  “Who decides who is an idiot that needs to be dealt with?
  Who defines idiot?
  Who defines the method of dealing with them?
  Who implements the "dealing with" process?
  Who decides who decides?”
  
  “Idiot” was a poor choice on my part, but my answer for all these questions is, you and yours would decide.
  
  Great questions
  report
  64
  PhoenixVposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Perpetuating the idea that owning land is a perpetuation of an idea, is in conflict with the establishments policy, enforced by law, that one either owns the land or is trespassing.
  reply report
  78
  Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Who makes laws? People, people with access to ideas and people who pass those ideas down to their children. Our children deserve better ideas than those we live with today.
  report
  64
  PhoenixVposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I agree, I also agree with the spirit of your ideas. There is so much bureaucracy that they make it impossible for people to effect laws and lawmaking. Even if they can its watered down or amended into oblivion by the same bureaucracy . I think ownership of land is a misleading term. We rent "our land" from government as long as we live. Property tax is evil in my opinion. If they need taxes for something find another way of getting it, than keeping us boarders or tenants of our own land.
  report
  64
  PhoenixVposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Lasqueti Island
  reply report
  76
  Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Lasqueti, Interesting place, it was one the rare places I've studies for my off grid green homes villages. That Island and some of the other Island around grow lots of pot and have anarchy type family government
  reply report
  60
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting. Sounds like they are more of what, (based on my experience with it many years ago anyway), Orcas Island wishes it were.
  reply report
  46
  Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Stay lazy parrot, that is a misconception of American Native rights and treatment.
  reply report
  78
  Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What if we were all armed? People minus government = chaos is a myth. I don't know about you, but the vast majority of people I know are descent people who want to help each other and the few I know who are not would think twice if everyone was armed. Native American wars were usually very small skirmishes. In many tribes there was more honor in counting coup (touching an enemy and living to tell about it) than there was in killing. Other tribes believed that the spirit of anyone you killed would haunt you and yours forever. Battles were typically over disagreements, not land. I fail to see how the lack of a land owning concept made the indigenous primitive. It makes more sense to me.
  reply report
  60
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  65
  innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Accountability? How come government is the only institution in the whole world that is not legally obligated to honour its contract? I've said it before, but I trust institutions that's existence depends on my voluntary payment above institutions that claim a violent monopoly and steal my money. Yes, I trust Apple, Wal-Mart and Nestle more than I do the government.
  reply report
  60
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You won't get an argument from me on that. Unfortunately nobody has come up with a way to make it work without a government. All land on earth is claimed by a government so there is no place for a fresh start, and even then, it would only be a matter of time before the existing governments sought to take you over.
  reply report
  78
  Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  We are not our enemies. The ideas that we adhere to are.
  reply report
  65
  innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The government, despite being a violent monopoly, can only exist through our cooperation. We can all collectively stop paying taxes and live peacefully if we darn well wanted to. Other governments, maybe, but there is nothing to stop us voluntarily raising a militia to protect ourselves either.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The difficulty in getting 350,000,000 people to live in peace and harmony without a cop on every street corner boggles the mind.
  
  Ditto for getting enough people together to form a militia capable of protecting the country and learning to work together to accomplish that task. Too many chiefs, not enough indians.
  reply report
  65
  innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  We've learnt to work together perfectly well when it comes to food, banking, travel, media, publishing, power, water, transport, logistics . . . but when it comes to the police force and militias? Nope, we're then a bunch of bumbling buffoons and we need an agency to take our money and do it for us. There's no evidence to suggest that. The motivation for the government's monopoly of those things is the same motivation as any other monopoly: they don't want competition. In any case, a number of competing militias accountable to the people has to be far superior to what we have now: a forever expanding military that profits from death and destruction.
  reply report
  76
  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Federalist papers 51: Remember what James Madison mentioned: to paraphrase:
  The check on the government is its dependence on the people.
  report
  60
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Unless you plan on altering human nature some how, yes. You can be pollyannish, and imagine otherwise, but it isn't going to happen. Even if it did, chaos would ensue.
  reply report
76
Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago
A. ---the fact that people are allowed to own land. Here, the government allows it. Why the heck not? Owning land is what makes the world go 'round. We wanted the land the native Native Americans did not own. Now look.
reply report
1. 78
  Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "Why the heck not?" Well for one, there is a finite amount of land on the planet and two, there are over 1 million other species.
  reply report
  76
  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well, for one thing, there is plenty of land in the US. For the rest of the world that is their concern. Whatever works for each country.
  " Imagine there's no country. Its easy if you try..."
  (How I loved that song when it first came out as a 17 year old with a very empty head.) Sorry, John Lennon, but we need borders, we need fences, we need boundaries. New World Order thinking must GO! Sorry Rod, I used to think like you. I got enlightened by studying the Federalist Papers, Plato and Aristotle in college...before the left took over there.
  reply report
  78
  Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you assume that I am thinking "New World Order"?
  reply report
  76
  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You are not, knowingly, but you are, unknowingly.
  This is why it is so easy to indoctrinate the Youth. It all sounds so great. But believe me... we need walls in our homes and fences around our houses to secure sanity, peace of mind and security. On a national level, boundaries provide an area which a people can defend. An extended republic cannot be too large or too small for many reasons... defense being one of them. (That is one of the reasons that Rome fell... Too large an empire to not only run, but defend.)
  (Also, consider what James Madison in paper 51 of the Federalist Papers
  mentioned, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary.")
  Shall I continue?
  reply report
  76
  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  (Why stop now?
  For instance:
  "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control itself. A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary control on the government..." for further auxiliary precautions see page 316 of the Federalist Papers. ( Yes, homework , Rod!)
  PS This book was to be required reading for high schools in California! I wonder what happened to that plan?
  Sorry, I got carried away.)
  Yes, it is fine to own land.
  Nothing wrong with it at all.
  Who likes paying their landlord?
  reply report
  78
  Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, to be young again. How old do you think I am? Never mind. What are you afraid of? I'm sorry, I rolled my eyes.
  reply report
  76
  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You are young enough to be misled by you own utopian thinking. .. That which can never be. But that 's ok. It 's what makes you quite engaging.
  reply report
  76
  Castlepalomaposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You got a good heart Rod, wish there more people who think like you.
  
  Now what are we going to do about the 2% rich who rule the most of the World ‘land Military, Police, Media and Banks
  reply report
  78
  Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The "2%" you speak of are people too; people who like us were born into a system not of their making or choosing. Just because it is working for them, doesn't make them bad people.
  reply report
  78
  Rod Raineyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, and thanks.
  reply report
46
Ericdierkerposted 11 years ago
Kings and Emporers and Pharoahs owned the land from Mongolia to Instanbul to Bergen Norway to Israel and all the Alexandrian and Roman empires. We see the Magna Carta pop up in someplace like 1566. Man began to have some ownership but only as lords. What we call "real property" was an even later right than women being owned by husbands and slaves chattel. Children were a property right.

What strange happenings in our land rush. What bizarre novelties were gold claims. Man does not own property, he is given right to it by his lordship.

No Native American ever owned land, he was only dominant over it.

The American dream of the white picket fence is completely ridiculous because normally the bank (modern lordship owns it) until our death.

Personal and real property are a figment agreement between parties. A human cannot own property. But a human entity can. Be secure in your home, you fool.
reply report
1. 60
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Eric, you are correct because even if your home is "free and clear," the government can confiscate it at any time it wants, giving you what ever it pleases for compensation. I think the OP, however, is suggesting nobody, including an entity, should be able to own it. Innersmiff did a nice job describing why that would not work.
  reply report
  46
  Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The greatest freedom is that without anchor to land. The greatest ownership is all that is before you. Only the money makers make ownership advisable.
  
  In my silly world I own my land. Who really owns it, try to take it.
  reply report
  60
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That's why they want to start chipping away at your guns.
  reply report
65
innersmiffposted 11 years ago
Private property is the only way we can apply the universal rule that one has the right to their own life and freedom. If we don't have property, that is, the product of one's labour, and the land in which to labour (so you're gonna make a watch, but where the heck are you gonna do it?), what we have is what is known as 'the tragedy of the commons'. For if everyone owns everything, where does my rights end and yours begin? How can we all simultaneously have the right to free association if there is no mechanism to stop unsolicited association? If we all have freedom of speech, does that mean a stranger can come into your house and tell your children all about his sexual escapades? No! Because, that's your house darn it.

What clouds the issue is the perception that all land ownership is essentially violent - 'might is right'. Think of it this way: how is it that orchards are to thrive if there is not a steward responsible for its upkeep? Through voluntary cooperation, we can agree to own (steward) sections of land for certain purposes. This is essentially what land-ownership is. If there is no individual ownership, there is no individual incentive for upkeep and growth. I'm not denying that well-run commons' can thrive sometimes, but the division of labour through the division of land is the most efficient economic system.
reply report
1. 76
  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well put, in my opinion, Innersmiff.
  I ran across something in a book that just poped into my hands regarding the early california Indians.
  "To them (California Indians), the individual was less important than the family, the village, the people and their place in the plan of life." The way of the California Indian was to show humility to the Great Spirit and to each other in most daily activities, showing humility by being unselfish was also important in gambling, a favorite pastime of the California Indians." hehehe.
  
  This excerpt is very interesting regarding the Colorado River Indian tribes:
  "Farming was associated with hard work, and in California it was associated with war because of the warlike nature of the farming tribes. Each had a warrior class whose job it was to attack the other farming tribes, kill and scalp their warriors, and enslave their women and children, who were kept as proof of victory. They traveled as far away as 150 miles for a fight and they believed that war enhanced the spiritual nature of the tribe as a whole." These were the Colorado River tribes- the Yuma, Mojave, Diegueno and the Cahiuilla. Page 17 and19 of "Digger", a book by Jerry Stanley, Crown Publishers, Inc. New York.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

What gives humans the right to own land?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

What gives humans the right to own land?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies