Thoughts on Who Knows What

The concept of ownership has been around forever. It used to be that anyone could claim ownership without too many questions asked, all you had to do was build a hut and exclaim to all those around you now own this plot. Now the big thing was however, that way back when, if you owned something people expected you to lead as well. The person with the biggest house often ended up being the leader of a village. With that responsibility came a duty to provide for your people, that’s what has killed so many people— famine, drought, plague, all horrible things that were due to nature were now because a leader isn’t protecting it’s people, it was the wrath of whatever god or gods people explained their worlds with. In some respects, that’s still how it is today; we just don’t blame natural disasters on our human leaders unless it was completely preventable. What we do blame on our leaders are disasters that happen because of people’s bad decisions or situations, like if a school gets shoot up it’s the mayors fault for not seeing it coming or for letting school continue to happen if the campus isn’t secure. We tend to always blame our leaders, those who supposedly own the most responsibility if you will, instead of reflecting on ourselves. Perhaps the school shooting was because teachers failed to see the bullying going on or students weren’t willing to be friendly with the loner “weird” kid. Now I’m not saying it should be entirely in the hands of teachers who are way too busy for their paychecks or students who are lost in the tides of puberty and their own life stressors, but there need to be some distribution of guilt. Same goes for leaders. Way beck when leaders were beheaded for reasons beyond their control, maybe the famine was due to lazy farmers, an enemy battalion, or even just natural disasters like droughts or flooding. I don’t know but there’s something to be said about the balance of responsibility and leadership. All those non-leader people also were owners of something, from a family and home of their own to just the clothes on their backs, and I think it’s fair to say that everyone owns responsibility to and for their fellow human.

We then discussed how you take land by force and it was certainly a mind opener for me. I had never really considered why violence happens, when peace seems like a better alternative for everything and everyone. Maybe it’s just because obtaining land without force is so difficult and humans have an insatiable need for more more more. I came up with two possibilities 1.) peacefully coexisting and developing a new way of life together and 2.) start a cult, use charisma to win people over so they want to join your cause… (no I’m not even kidding hear me out).

1. This is probably the most wide-eyed and naive approach to this problem but it would have the best outcome. Getting two people to coexist is nearly impossible unless there’s a preexisting friendship or other relationship there. Even in situations like that some people still value alone time and isolation and would never be willing to share a ownership of land with someone else. You could pay them for the land which is what we do now, but that would only be morally acceptable if the person was trying to sell it already. If you were able to coexist, however, both parties would be happy (theoretically) and you may even be able to develop your own relationship/culture together. We already kind of do this with roommates, my roommate and I definitely have a culture of our own for when we’re in the dorm and outside too because we’ve become friends. The impossible part of this proposition though would be if you want to acquire inhabited land when the other doesn’t want to share peacefully.
2. Starting a cult might be the most effective strategy here as impossible, morally questionable and illegal it may be. Charisma however makes sense, even if it is sleazy. Imagine literally using words to coax someone out of their homes and off their land. It is peaceful because it doesn’t require violence if it’s done right. I would think, though, that the coaxer would have to have some weight over the coaxee if it were to work, and that’s where cults come in. An extremely charismatic cult leader could convince people to hand over life and property to join their cause (I mean religion does it all the time but that’s a whole other discussion). The leader could propose that the aliens have spoken to them and require the coaxee’s house for purposes beyond their understanding. Now it would take more time, you have to actually convince them that you were “100% real” when commonsense is usually a person’s main guide in situations like this, but there is a series of steps that can certify a cult following. All cults that have existed and do exist have taken these steps to certify unquestioning loyalty. After they’re taken you could easily persuade them to give you their land, thereby peacefully acquiring it (as ethically questionable it is).

Ok so I know that last one is crazy and part of me meant it as a joke, but it would work provided you have the drive and skills to do so. I also really wanted to write about cults in an official thing for school and now I have, perfect opportunity. They’re fascinating and terrifying. On to other topics. If corporations are like pseudo-people in the eyes of the law then wouldn’t shares be like slavery? I realize that corporations are only people without bodies, so I guess it can’t be because slavery was a complete disregard of humans as such and their bodies were what was owned. It’s still eerily close enough to make me uncomfortable. Then there’s the fact that corporations are legally considered humans just so people who operate them have a sort of scapegoat without taking full blame if something bad happens, I’m not sure how I feel about that. I think we need to hold corporations responsible for their actions and the people who operate them as well. That being said, I think we should consider individuals under a corporation as well and that we should have some grounds on how to protect them when it’s right. I just don’t know how.

The last thing I wanted to write about was how terrible and atrocious Disney™ is as a company (the TM is so if they ever see this they don’t sue me, that’s how terrible they are). We have laws that protect the market from a monopoly, but clearly they need some updating because a monopoly is exactly what Disney™ has. They are in possession of the majority of the film market, especially since they bought out Fox. They have billions worth of copyrighted material which I hate for another reason. Disney™ literally steals preexisting ideas for films and whatever from public domain and make something of it, which isn’t bad on it’s own, but they then go on to sue anyone who makes anything after them that’s even a little bit similar. It’s deplorable. On top of that, they’ve also got a history of racism, antisemitism, vulgarity and conservatism which I despise since they’re considered a “family” company. Anyways, I hate Disney™ as a company which sucks because their movies and parks are good, which sucks more because it’s all just there to sell merchandise. At this point in time, there’s literally NOTHING that could take down Disney™ as a company, they’re too rich and powerful, outside of government intervention and even then it probably wouldn’t topple them because they have their grubby fingers in almost every influential country. UGH… sorry that was a lot of rage… it’s always been there but this lecture just brought it out.