To own, or not to own....?

I do not recall who said it, though I have read it in Nietzsche's works: "Arguing over land is like two fleas on the back of a dog arguing over who the dog belongs to..."

And did you know that the Native Americans do not have a word for "owning land"? Remarkable isn't it. I bet the white folks who came first to the US were delighted to learn that. It definitely gave them a certain moral leeway, which is necessary when you want to scam someone, let alone a whole race of people. I mean they thought: "How can I steal from someone who lays no claim on what I want to steal"?

Native Americans were all around North America too, contrary to what people like me, not having learned ever much about Native American history, believe. They didn't occupy a couple of dozen villages. They lived all over North America and were made of many different tribes so the colonizers really outdid themselves in suppressing the natives. Enough with history and politics though. It is certainly not the purpose of this blog to discuss historic injustice done (just remember that the WWII was not the only dark period of humanity- sadly there were even worse in my opinion).

Do we own anything? The question can extend to both the realms of secular and spiritual things. There are two types of ownership we could say similar and different in ways. There is physical ownership which refers to earthly possessions such as a house, a car, a baseball bat. There is then spiritual ownership which refers to the feeling of owning spiritual and emotional objects such as the love of your spouse.

The two kinds of ownership are different foremost in the way that law views them. Secular objects are ascribed to an owner and there are legally binding contracts that uphold the ownership. For example if someone breaks into my car and drive sit without my consent he is considered a burglar. This car belonged to me because I bought it and the paper of its ownership was transfered to me by the manufacturer. The law protects and upholds that agreement between the manufacturer and me the owner. Thus the burglar is breaking the law when he/she takes my car without my prior consent.

I think Rousseau said that : the first man who put a fence around a piece of land and claimed it was his, and was able to convince a number of people of it, was the inventor of society.

Spiritual ownership is different in the sense that the law does not always protect the agreement between the two participants and thus any of the two can brake such a virtual contract at any time with no legal re precautions. There maybe though other ill-effects such as social stigma and a damaged reputation leading to further mistrust of the perpetrator by the rest of the community.

I maintain that both types of ownership are plasmatic and result from the need for physical and emotional stability that humans try to create in their lives. Through marriage, a stable working environment and our circle of friends we try to shelter ourselves. Even with our houses we try to protect ourselves, cover ourselves and establish strong bonds with other individuals. Why? I believe it all happens because of human fear of death.

In a world where the only sure thing is death, we try to create other forms of certainty to ease our fears and insecurities.

This is exactly why many philosophers such as, but not limited to, Bhudda, Epicuros, and the Stoics stressed continuously the importance of releasing ourselves from any form and feeling of ownership and possession in this life.

-Christoff