In class on Thursday, Dr. Biskner asked whether or not it would be right for a person to claim ownership of a section of land if it had the only water supply. My answer is on the fence right now. I think it would be perfectly fine for someone to claim ownership of this land if they were the one to find it because they would be the one to take care of it. On that same side, I think they should share their water supply with anyone that needs it in that area. Even if they charge people for the water, like most places are starting to do, it would be better than being greedy and keeping all the water to themselves. There is no way they will use all of that water, so they should share it.
On the other hand, I don't think they should claim ownership. Even though they did find this land first, I think this land would be more beneficial if it belonged to everyone in the surrounding area; like a community water supply to take and use as you please. The original person could claim owership of land next to the water supply and have easy access to it. Everyone would be happy.
I guess it really depends on the person's character and what they would do in this situation. I would hope that the person would consider the needs of other people when they are debating whether or not to claim this land, but some people just aren't like that. What would you do?
*I commented on Camila's post, "Giving Up Something For The Greater Good!!"*
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I guess there's no way to agree or disagree with this blog, so I'll say that I kind lean more toward your first idea, although I'm more reluctant to have a law installed that requires you to share your land/property and the resources thereof, rather than giving the land to the community for use. So, uh... I can't really decide for myself either, though I'll probably get into it more in a blog post of my own.
ReplyDeleteIt all boils down again to what we discussed: How should 'ownership' be handled? Should it be what the generic definition is, where someone owns land/property and can do with it what they wish? Or should there be exceptions that are intended to benefit the society as a whole (provided there is no corruption)?
I believe ownership should be the definition, though a lot of people would lose out on a lot of good things -- maybe things that are necessary, as in the example you have given. But I don't know. I'll ramble more in my own blog. :)
You make a very good point. There shouldn't be a law requiring the owner to share their property and resources; however, if they did not share, everyone would probably hate them for being greedy - or at least envy them for their possessions. I mean, do we not envy/hate rich people that hoard their money or spend it on useless, material objects?
ReplyDeleteI guess what I'm trying to say is that ownership and resource-sharing should be left up to the individual, but they should do whatever they could to benefit mankind.