RE: The Social Experimentalist - Danny Shine On Waking People Up In The UK and the World
You can make a claim of ownership and if no-one disagrees with you then you can continue claiming that you own the land and within your own belief system you may experience that indeed you do own the land.
However, the 'owning' does not exist outside of your belief systems. If the wider cosmic reality aligns in such a way that your land is now 100m under sea water, you will learn just how real your claim of ownership was. If a 'state' comes along and forces agreement to a system of ownership that involves paperwork and courts etc. - then all that has occurred is that the belief system of ownership has expanded to be held by more people - but it does not make it any more 'real' just because more people buy into it.
What has been missing from Earth for an extremely long time is both a deep understanding of who we are and also an intent to share and operate as one. Instead we have competition, conflict, fear and intention to divide on the basis of thinking that says that if we don't divide and separate then we will have nothing. In reality though, if you really think and feel into this, it is apparent that survival is far more assured when we co-operate than when we compete. Sharing is far more beneficial than not sharing - usually - isn't it funny how we teach children to 'be nice' and 'share with your friends'?, but once they are older we now tell them that 'sharing is communism' lol.
There are many angles that this can be approached from, but one I like to mention is that the Earth is a living being in it's own right.. Think of fleas on a Dog and how the fleas don't 'own' the bit of land (skin) that they inhabit, plus the Dog can eject them through it's own will. Animals don't claim 'ownership' and in truth they tend to move around when wild (and free). Some humans will say 'oh, but the animals are unintelligent, they don't have the mind to understand ownership' - whereas I will say 'the animals are wise because they haven't been trapped by such foolish ideas as that they 'own' part of a planet'.
Ultimately, I value freedom and free movement is part of that. We cannot be totally free while we think it's just fine to shoot each other if we move in ways that some of us don't like. Artificial borders and 'land ownership' form part of that dysfunctional limitation on freedom (ironically often done in the name of freedom).
My children are taught to share their toys with their siblings, but they are not taught to give those toys, which I worked hard to pay for, to random people or even their siblings. That's not a good explanation at all. I teach my children to give to people in genuine need, but that does not include the lazy. Those who can be productive had better be, or they are going to starve--as they should.
Are the poor the fleas on my body? Again, that's not a very good example. Parasites compared to some humans isn't exactly an ideal analogy. I have no duty to keep those fleas on my body any more than a dog does. The dog would gladly be rid of them if it could be too. The dog can eject them through it's own will? That's news to me.
I go back to my development of the land I happen to live on. I work for years to develop fruit trees, berry bushes, and a garden. You then can simply wander onto the land, having done zero work, and lay claim to the literal fruits of my labor? I don't think that's going to work.
My message here is that beyond the family unit there is a much larger family that is being largely forgotten - the family of all that is.
How do you teach them to determine who is lazy and who is not?
When it comes to abundance of food and starvation - my point is that if humans understood how to work with the planet then none would starve since the planet would be an almost continuous garden of food. Unfortunately, we have succumbed to ignorant mis-use of the land after a long time spent divided and out of balance.
That was not what I said. My analogy compares all humans to the fleas on the Dog's body. I did not mean that all humans are parasites, I meant that just as the fleas live on the dog and the dog has it's own will to remove them - so too does the planet have it's own will to remove those who are out of balance and misaligned from the planetary intention. Regardless of whether you feel that or not, the point really here is that the scale of the flea to the dog is being compared to the scale of the human and the planet - with the observation being made that claiming to own part of the land is ultimately as senseless as the flea claiming to own part of the dog. I appreciate that in our current world climate, property rights serve a purpose and are thought to be of use, but I am also pointing to a reality that is superior in every way too that we have mostly not known.
The will is greatly denied and misunderstood.
In a world that is divided and dysfunctional, it can seem that if we do not all work on our own small piece of the land that we will starve. However, what I am pointing to is an altogether more balanced reality where we have collectively shifted away from wasting most of our energy in pointless activities and instead share a collective intention to not only re-green the planet, but to do so in style - with food baring plants all around. Imagine if all the lazy office workers knew how to grow plants instead of just how to push pieces of paper and watch tv? Imagine if they weren't some of the highest 'paid' and thought of to be the least lazy ;)
I understand the flea analogy now. We are one of millions of species on this planet. Our significance is definitely very small in the overall picture.
Sure, we are all connected via energy, etc., but our production, the individual's production, cannot be forcibly taken from them. Individual liberty doesn't exist without private property.
Even a small garden takes work. The planet does not have an apple tree on every corner. There isn't plentiful food all over. To support even a small family, you have to work very hard to develop your land.
To do what you suggest, millions of people would have to be forced to work in food production for others. Who's going to force them?
A lot of people think food in grocery stores get there by magic. The piece of fruit you are buying isn't very expensive by itself. Most of the cost is getting it to the shelf.
That's because most people do not grow their own food, and there's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone had to work to get that food to the point where the person buying it could. It cost time and fuel and other resources to bring it to market.
The planet has plenty of room too. People could live in places that have plenty of food, but they choose not to do it. Who's going to force them to move?
I'm an office worker, and I'm definitely not lazy. By lazy above I meant people who do not work, who leech off others for everything (welfare), and who also do not produce their own food via a garden, etc.
The old saying remains very true. "If you don't work, you don't eat." Just be sure the work you do is valuable to the market, for you can't simply dig and refill holes all day.