Is it morally wrong to own property and not use it for profit?
I recently realized that a vast majority of americans owns a lot of property, and all that property does is cost them money.
For example How many people own a house with a half acre of yard, and never grow anything on that half acre. In that half acre they have profit potential, but they dont want to do anything with it.How many people spend hundreds of dollars on puppy just to have it spayed or neutered and now instead of making thousands of dollars off of that animal, all that animal is, is an expense.
A good example of a piece of property that makes money is your vehicle. You use it to go make money, sure there is an expense there but you are using it for profit.
Also when I say profit I dont necessarily mean money. Churches (real churches) profit a community by helping out with families, and helping people with addictions get off of them. Michael Nystrom uses this site for the profit to the patriots, and to our country. My sister uses her house for boy scout meetings, I use my tv to watch martial arts instructional videos to help improve my technique. We could probably think of hundreds of things that are profitable with our property that we dont do.
I cant help but think of the founding fathers and how industrious they were. And how they said you could not vote if you did not have property, because apparently property made people industrious, but now it seems like it has just made us lazy. And all we want to do is pay the rent.
Am I right is it morally wrong to own property and not use it for profit?
Of course not.
If you own something, it's nobody else's business what you do with it as long as you're not infringing on anyone else's rights.
-jcr
"The problem with trying to child-proof the world, is that it makes people neglect the far more important task of world-proofing the child." -- Hugh Daniel
You're speaking in strictly
You're speaking in strictly legal terms here, while the OP is asking a moral question. If your property includes a lake, and a million kids are dehydrating to death outside your gate, even though the lake is yours and you can do whatever with it, I wouldn't necessarily say filling it up with radioactive toxins just to watch it glow is a very moral thing to do.
On the "profitable" issue, many, like the Founders, stress the importance of always being vigilant when it comes to defending our liberties. Which, only one degree removed, implies putting oneself in a position to afford to be vigilant about defending liberties. If leaving potentially profitable property unused puts one in a position of increased dependence on government services, one's ability to stand up for freedom is diminished. A more "moral" approach, could in that case be said to have been what Devon_Saunders wrote about below, using his property to make himself as independent as possible, even in the face of disaster.
This looks like a summary of
This looks like a summary of Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which was written over a hundred years ago.
The mentality that you should always be productive for the sake of money and "profit" is unhealthy and one of many reasons why society is completely broken. In the pursuit for more productivity, we have been turned into wage slaves. We drill into school children from the moment they set foot in public school how to be obedient automaton workers. We tell kids to go to college not to learn knowledge, how to think critically, or just to better themselves, but instead to "get a degree so you can get a good job". And where is the benefit in this mentality? Where has this mentality taken us? The extremely wealthy elites make even more money while the middle class shrinks, 20 percent of the country is on anti-depressants, and just now on the Daily Paul is a thread about a study that claims 8 millions Americans "seriously consider suicide". This is what happens when you tell people to value "money, profit, and productivity" over family, education for the sake education, and just enjoying life in general: you end up with a miserable, sick society!
OP, just because you don't see how these decisions benefit society or you personally doesn't mean they are poor or ill thought-out. Maybe the family who spends thousands on their dog just wants a companion to brighten their lives (the therapeutic benefits of having a pet are understated). Maybe the person who does not have a garden takes great pleasure in perfecting and maintaining the perfect lawn (are we not allowed to have hobbies since they too are "unproductive"?). You don't know their motivations or what led them to those decisions, so to immediately chalk it up to laziness is incredibly ignorant and judgmental.
I apoligize
if I gave the sense that I see profit as merely money. It is true one form of profit is money and I do see a problem with people owning valuable property that only cost them money. I also see a problem with people owning property and not growing any food off of it, even if there is little profit in that per se, there children should not be deprived of the education of gardening.
Also I see a problem with people using the tv as a babysitter. It would be far more profitable to teach their children how to use tools or garden or raise animals, ect. The reason why I use property here is because in many places you can not do any of those things unless you own the property.
I am also not chalking it up to lazyness. I am chalking it up to poor insight. Most of these people who do not use their property (which happens to be most people) do not use it because that is the way it has always been, as far as they are concerned. But just because you do everything like everybody else doesnt make it right.
???
A true Christian would not consider himself the owner of a property, but a steward in charge of it. The proprietor is God the Father, the creator of the earth.
grant
You never own your property
You never can own property because you will have to pay for it for ever(property tax)
TheKingIsComing
False.
Two ways that I know of.. allodial title (Texas) and Indian land (sovereign territory.)
I do not pay taxes on my land... when you go over the cattleguard you are leaving the Unites States, for all intents and purposes.
There are ways.
~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~
So you live on indian land?
What are you fightin' for?
Caught in the middle?
Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!
What are you fightin' for?
Caught in the middle?
Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!
Do fleas own the dog?
You can never truly "own" land. Who sold it originally? By what right?
Explore Orthodox Christianity
Nobody ~sold it~ origionally.
I live on Delaware Indian land, deeded to the family.
Yes Virginia, you can truly ~own~ land.
Well, you can't, probably. But I certainly can.
~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~
I don't think you're following me.
By what right was the deed issued? Was the land there before the paper?
I'm just messing around. But seriously, no living creature can own the planet it occupies.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
~sigh~
Mike, sovereign territory.
It is not part of the federal government or the United States.
I understand what you are trying to say, philisophically.
I do not care, philisophically. I am saying that the land I live on I OWN.. meaning that if a policeman steps onto it, I can by rights shoot him because he is a foreign invader. The only ~police~ that can come onto my property are Delaware... and there are none filling the position. State and local policemen have to get approval from my Tribal Council before stepping foot on my property, or it would be a tactic admission of War between the United States and the Tribe.
They are well aware of that... trust me.
Things are a little different in Indian country... :)
~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~
You're Wrong Mike.
According to English law, the laws that the U.S. was founded on, when land grants were offered by the King, and as the poster above said, original land grants were done in allodial title.
You and most other people don't realize this fact and modern governments at all levels do their very best to hide this fact so they can make a profit from your property by fraudulently assessing taxes, and the courts go along with the governments.
I'm a former real estate agent.
beesting
And who gave it to the king?
You're not getting my point either. I've been to Badnarik's Constitution class, I know all about allodial title. I was being a bit more philosophic.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
The King and his army claimed it was his with force,,,
,,,Until another army defeated the Kings army. Which was Washington's army !
That's the way things were done since antiquity.
I'm not saying it's right, its just how history evolved.
I'm surprised this topic came up, because my old college professor stated the difference between a slave state { Communism } and a free state { The former USA under Constitutional law },,,,is ownership.
Many Americans apparently don't understand this now-a-days.
beesting
this is a hilarious
this is a hilarious subthread.
the only land you own is the land you can occupy and can prevent others from occupying, while you're alive.
the federal government owns it all.
now there are allodial titles, partial allodial titles, indian land, etc etc etc.
but the fine print is in government statues, laws, etc and they render your allodial title into mere words on a piece of paper.
it's only as good as the government's word that it's good.
looking back at how native americans were murded, raped and robbed.... and then how the government has acted since then... I'm surprised that anyone of native american ancestry thinks that the government is good for their word.
lol.
Wrong.
The federal government has nothing to do with it any longer... get out of the 1840's.
Things have changed a bit since then, although we are well aware that 7/8ths of our population died because of it, tyvm.
However, you are spouting crap without any knowledge of the subject. We've land in the family that we've title to since the 1860's. That's not going to change anytime soon.
~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~
Do You Remember When Ron Paul Was Fighting Against,,,
,,,Something called "eminent domain" a few years ago,when the government of some state { New Jersey ? } tried to take someones property by the rule of eminent domain just to resell it to some special interest group.
The case ruling by the supreme court, if I remember right, was upheld by the powers that be, { congress, senate, supreme court etc. } that what the state of New Jersey did, could not be done again because the state abused the power of eminent domain.
{ Proving government is not supposed to claim to own private land.}
Eminent domain from Websters: A right of a government to take private property for "PUBLIC" use ...etc. etc.
The state had taken private land for other than public use and got their hands slapped big time when someone later wanted to take a Senators house by invoking the eminent domain law.
Which simply shows that most private property is safe from government seizure.
Elect Ron Paul President in 2012 and watch for many big changes in what government can and cannot do, according to the Constitution.
Ron Paul is already my President !
beesting
???
A true Christian would not consider himself the owner of a property, but a steward in charge of it. The proprietor is God the Father, the creator of the earth.
So what government can claim the right to impose a property tax.
God the Father does not, he provides light and all the elements in exchange for our labor, which is to feed ourselves and love each other. Which government do you prefer?
grant
Fine but,,,
How do I prove to a squatter, or a group of squatters, that I have a legal right to stay on what I consider my property, without a piece of official paper showing that I have a man made right to stay there?
Lets all start camping out at iehuvihs house and say God sent us.
Just kidding iehuvihs, please don't take this personally.
beesting
Ownership of property !
The Constitution says in Amendment 14:
...Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property...etc. etc.
I simply bring this up to point out how governments have subverted the supreme law of the land.
The original American property owners had something called "Allodial" title to their property. This basically means the owner has sovereign title { The same type of ownership that a King has } to their property.
Governments in cahoots with bankers making loans for property purchases have subverted these early property rights by forcing most property owners to pay a property tax.
To answer your question, if you ""Own"" your property you should be able to do anything you want with it, without disturbing your neighbors property.
Marxism is the theory that government owns all property and can dictate what you do with your property.
beesting
I would say yes....
But not in the way you have defined it.
If you define property (land, in this case) as an asset, then I would dare say that you have a moral obligation to use said asset to your benefit.
If I take my own property as a example, I have reworked the property so that it has a sizable stock tank (a pond) that was stocked years ago with bass and bluegill.
Another portion of my property houses chickens, goats and a few beefalo.
2 acres of said property is gardens, another acre or so fruit trees.
There is a 1/4 acre of solar panels and other goodies as well.
So, although I am not making a ~profit~ per se on the property, I am using it in a way that decreases my need for an outside income to almost nothing.
Why do I call that a moral obligation? Simply because it puts me in a situation that makes me far less ~dependent~ on anyone around me. We should all strive to be self-sufficient, or at least as much as we are able.
So yes, in a roundabout way... :)
~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~
What moral code are you working from?
I didn't think there was a moral imperative to exploit.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
I was thinking prudence on this one.
And when I say profit I am not only talking about dollars and cents here (of course in our society that is the first thing we think of when we here profit).
I know people who have kids who just dump them on other people (usually the government), and it is like what is the point?
I know people who own big pieces of land that they never see, and to make matters worse it is falling apart, so why dont you do something with it besides pay taxes?
I know people who are young and healthy and single that do nothing profitable with their free time (they are working like a thirty hour week at walmart) and then turn around and complain that they dont have nothing to do, when there are so many profitable things to do with their time like learn a hobby instead of wasting it all on the couch.
I am coming from the perspective that one of these days I am going to give an account before God for what I did with my life, and with the stuff he gave me, so I guess I am trying to figure out how to make my life as profitable as possible.
what happened to to liberty,
what happened to to liberty, to do with your property what you wish?
A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences. Proverbs 22:3
A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences. Proverbs 22:3
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to
send peace on earth: I came not to send peace,
but a sword.
Using your conception of "profit"
is it not "profit" for the family who bought the puppy to enjoy the companionship, loyalty, fun, potential protection, etc. the dog provides?
You are falling victim to inconsistent conceptualization and it makes potentially valid point not so valid.
Clean it up and you may be on to something.
_________________________________
Freedom - Peace - Prosperity
No.
Why would you think that stipulations like that would or should apply to one's private property?
I am not talking about making a law
For example I consider drinking alcohol morally wrong and will not do it myself, but at the same time I do not think that there should be a law against it.