Threesology Research Journal: Hybrids, Hybrination, Hibridization
Hybrids in Economics 6
page 18

~ The Study of Threes ~

Hybrids page 1 Hybrids page 2 Hybrids page 3 Hybrids page 4 Hybrids page 5
Hybrids page 6 Hybrids page 7 Hybrids page 8 Hybrids page 9 Hybrids page 10
Hybrids page 11 Hybrids page 12
Playmate God
Hybrids 13
Economics 1
Hybrids 14
Economics 2
Hybrids 15
Economics 3
Hybrids 16
Economics 4
Hybrids 17
Economics 5
Hybrids 18
Economics 6
Hybrids 19
Economics 7
Hybrids 20
Language 1
Hybrids 21
Language 2

Flag Counter
Visitors as of 30th July, 2021
FWT Homepage Translator

One of the longest lasting creatures of Economic hybridizations involving Business, Government and Religion is Land. Land is a means by which these three as well as individuals can carry out a symbolic form of chest thumping or ego bellowing. It provides them a way in which the public can be enslaved, at least to the very minimum of requiring some sort of tax, usually under the guise that a person has some ownership in a portion... that is, so long as the continue paying the real owner— their landlord, the required rent... be it called a tax, a tithing, or other tenured revenue generating term.

Originally, long ago, one might think to say that land was erroneously thought of as a free commodity which comes in different sizes, shapes and compositions, and has no natural landlord who requests some annual payment; though some claim that a god or mother nature is the true, the real, the only owner and may well exact payment if humans (as tenants) abuse the residence; if by no other way then introducing some means of destruction... typically by way of a method described as nature, weather, or a god's fury. Commonly, in present discourse, the use of land becomes declared being owned by some business, by some government, or those advocating some religion who claim they get their authority from some supposed god. Lying and make-believe come in many forms.

Historically, some clan, tribe or group that frequented a give path or range might claim that they have ownership by right of longevity or that they were given the land by someone who actually had no more claim to a given land than they did; but were able to ensure they could claim a land by protecting it from falling into the hands of another claimant who might well also resort to violence to keep or collect a given territory. However, it should be stated that all lands are falsely owned, though ownership is claimed by right of occupancy... typically valued in terms of duration. In this sense, no nation of people has a right to claim they live on (and may have occupied), even if it is for centuries. Nor does anyone have the right to claim a land due to some supposed god-given recital of having been chosen... which is another chest thumping egotism. The idea of land ownership still remains as an accepted perspective due to an ability to thwart the efforts of those who would take control of it over the present claimants. (Might makes right as it is colloquially said.) Such claims the world over are just as stupid as humans claiming they own the Earth, the solar system, and the galaxy, much less the Universe. Nonetheless, if humans had the technological means to occupy other planets, they would come to claim ownership... based plainly on a means to effect violence against those who might try to claim it for themselves. Hence, we see a primivity of thought being exercised, similar to that seen in other life forms, like a spider extending their web to cover a space which, in effect, is a declaration of ownership entitling them to effect an entrapment... an exploitation... an enslavement of anyone who would dare enter their domain. Humanity is little different than this.

Then again, the ownership of land has been denied to some based on their affiliation to a religion (for example: Land-Use Regulation of Religious Uses by David W. Owens, August, 1997); gender (for example: Women in Half the World Still Denied Land, Property Rights Despite Laws); and in particular having been denied land ownership due to their race, (for example: White Supremacy and the Alien Land Laws of Washington State by Nicole Grant).

It is of interest to note that in many instances, a person feels or is taught to feel that without land ownership, their liberty is somehow lost or in a state of limbo. For some strange reason many humans identify with plant life like a tree, and feel it is necessary to "establish roots" in a single place that they are enabled to claim as their own. And if numerous people accept this idea and then place it onto a piece of paper, such observances are used to imbed the people with the idea of sovereignty and inviolable right. It's all make-believe nonetheless. However, the creation of different fairytales and myths (in which different hybrids of ideas occur), is a cognitive activity which comes to be exhibited in serious documents such as laws and declared Constitutional observances. Land ownership is part of the mythological, fairytale and superstitious traditions (such as religion) that are given occupancy in the minds of different peoples in all nations. These cognitive profiles are like viruses which have mutated over generations and become more firmly entrenched into the psyche of humanity under the guise of science and law frequently taken up by politicians who assist in the effected practice of an established symbiotic relationship for these patterns of thinking... one of which is the idea of land ownership due to one or another form of occupancy supported by a human created formula of law and belief imprinted as a right due to some documentation or word-of-mouth acceptance established and deferred to over time. Ownership of land is a fairytale humans believe in, yet argue about with various philosophical rationalizations converted into legalities protected by strong-arm tactics. Humanity does not and can not own the Earth. One's birth place does not automatically provide one with a stake of ownership. If this were true, many a person would be able to claim a given hospital as their property.

Let us look at the silliness of human argumentation about property which is actually an attempt to thwart the efforts of others from exploiting them. Effecting an idea about property ownership is a means by which the atrocities of abuse conducted by those who are able to wield compliance of others through force. John Locke is a primary fairy tale creator in this regard that many others became to believe in, because it was a way and means to get those in authority to stop abusing the public. If not by means of land ownership, than by the view that a person's body was their private property which could not or at least should not be violated and that because of this, their labor could not (or should not) be exploited such as in the case of slavery or servitude without just compensation for their efforts to assist a land owner in their efforts to produce a saleable product. The problem with this logic is that it is extremely outdate because the right of a person's property extends also into their ability to exercise a full measure of collectively choosing which laws are to be observed without those laws being subjected to "refinements" which serve the perspectives of individuals in a legislative body. Whereas a process of referendum is said to remove this barrier, often time the Referendum is itself subjected to a labyrinthine formula of exercise that the very public it is meant to serve, becomes such a burden to execute it as a given functionality, whereby those who have established the practice of Referendum are guaranteed that it is either rendered moot or effectively minimized as to assist some minority, (such as a legislature or judge) who do not want to share governing power with the majority. Whereas the establishment of a Peoples Legislative Branch based on a similitude process of the Jury system would be able to enable the public to wrest actual control away from the many controlling individualisms existing in present government structures, it is not being used unless the people force it to be used. A government which allows for a jury system in its courts should have no argument for not using a jury-duty system of legislative government in the form of a Peoples Legislative Branch. To do otherwise is hypocrisy... which is a standard cognitive profile being used among multiple "peoples governments".

While the following speaks of "a safeguard against arbitrary government", it does not also include a safeguard against the arbitrations of businesses and religions. While many citizens see the inherent evils in businesses and religions, others do not. Some rationalize that because the world is full of different evils which occur in the respective environments of businesses, governments and religions, or are at least observed in the eyes of those who share in these ideological environments; whatever the respective leaderships do to confront their respective evils (as they are perceived in those environments of traditioned thinking), is duly warranted. However, others do not share in such an acceptance of permitting these separate and sometimes inter-mingling orientations to effect whatever is necessary in dealing with their perceived evils and adversaries as they envision them from their respective points of interpretation.

As should be note, the ideas about property rights was a means by which the people came to put a harness on the government, though realistically, the government knows all too well that such a harness can be cast off under the proviso entitled by such views as "National Security", "Public Good", "Martial law", or any other typically double-worded expression effecting a suspension of any and all agreements to where any harness that the public foolishly believes they are actually controlling the reins thereof. Believing in such nonsense as one does in the belief of any made-up religious perspective, is a means by which a fantasy concocted form of personal security can be embraced, much like a child believing in one or another aspect of a fairytale. Business, government and religion are the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. Rights, promises, rules, regulations, etc., afforded to the public by the doctrines of this trinity is an illusion embraced by so many that it creates an atmosphere which acts as a three-pointed gyroscope akin to the game of rock-scissors-paper which perpetrates delusions of grandeur within the respective orientations of their separate and inter-mixed environments. Those who gain sobriety or "super-sanity" from such a delusion either learn how to navigate the various illusory waterways or find themselves trying to use different methods to convince themselves otherwise, even to the extent of trying to bury oneself in some other form of inebriation or distraction. Sometimes however, a person's perception of the illusory environment in which humanity lives becomes so overwhelming to the point they can not get others to share in their views to the degree they are experiencing them, may well develop into an attitude of retreat that is counter effective to their desire to reveal a presumed truth that they have not developed a fully fledged substitute for nor shown a path to a more rewarding way of life which is not itself not another type of illusion.

English Constitutional Background

Americans of the founding generation were not original in stressing the rights of property owners. Instead, their views were strongly shaped by the English constitutional tradition. Colonial Americans revered Magna Carta (1215) as a safeguard against arbitrary government. Several provisions of this famous document protected the rights of property owners:

  1. The king agreed not to take, imprison, or dis-seize a person of property "except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land". The "law of the land" clause was the forerunner of the due process norm.
  2. The king promised not to take provisions without immediate payment. This language acknowledged the principle that government must pay the owner when it acquires private property.
  3. The king further pledged that "no scutage or aid shall be imposed on our kingdom unless by common consent of our kingdom." This language was the origin of the norm that government could not levy taxes without consulting a representative body.

In time these as well as other provisions of Magna Carta would evolve into important principles of American constitutionalism/p>

John Locke, who wrote in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, explored the nature of government and emphasized the rights of property owners as a bulwark of liberty. According to Locke, legitimate government was grounded on a compact between the people and their rulers. The people, he theorized, sustained the government in exchange for support of their inherent or natural rights. Private property, in Locke's view, existed under natural law before the establishment of political authority. It followed that a principal purpose of government was to safeguard natural property rights. Locke insisted that lawmakers could not arbitrarily take property or levy taxes without popular consent. One can hardly overestimate Locke's influence on the founding generation. "By the late eighteenth century," Pauline Maier has commented, "'Lockean' ideas on government and revolution were accepted everywhere in America; they seemed, in fact, a statement of principles built into the English constitutional tradition."

Locke's stress on the inviolability of the rights of property owners was powerfully strengthened by William Blackstone. In his Landmark Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) Blackstone sought to restate the tenets of English common law. He gave considerable attention to the important place of private property in English law. "The third absolute right, inherent in every Englishman," Blackstone wrote, "is that of property: which consists in the free use, enjoyment and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land." He also spoke enthusiastically about "that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world..." Further, Blackstone maintained that government must pay full compensation when it takes private property for public use. Blackstone’s work had an enormous impact on the legal culture of the late colonial period. As John Phillip Reid has emphasized: "In the eighteen century pantheon of British liberty there was no right more changeless and timeless than the right to property."

There may have been no eighteenth-century educated American who did not associate defense of liberty with property. Like their British contemporaries, Americans believed that just as private rights in property could not exist without constitutional procedures, liberty could be lost if private rights in property were not protected...

Property Rights in American History
James W. Ely, Jr.
Vanderbilt University

Long ago it was established that ownership of a land required a written authorization that was made up to effect the illusion of someone who gave themselves the right to own a land, such as a group who practice a religion in a given place or a people who claim themselves to be a government and that this declaration is somehow the definitive authority by which a land is owned and can be sold, traded, taxed and used for whatever purpose a government wants; so long as the end result is some revenue generating exercise or suppression/oppression of those who would otherwise usurp their self-claimed authority. A written declaration such as a deed or charter is given by humans who claim ownership, and yet accept only the most marginal or token responsibility for its maintenance (through non-interference protectionist laws and guardianship), unless the non-land owners such as citizens, demand that one or another land be respected; often by giving it a title or name such as Fatherland, Motherland, Preserve, Sanctuary, Sacred, Forbidden, Publicly owned (but government controlled), etc... While few citizens are actually permitted to own land, they do so only by the slimiest of legality called taxation. By not paying taxes, all land is subject to confiscation by whatever authority deems itself the caretaker and legal Representative agent for all others. Property ownership is actually long-term lease agreements based on annual taxes (as a rent) which must be paid or have the land confiscated.

Land has played an enormous part, if not the largest part in all theories of basic economics. Without an ability to travel into or on a land, no other economic enterprise can be undertaken. Microscopically, one might cite the need for street walking prostitutes being enabled to routinely "walk a beat" or the same path, like any predator awaiting any prey that wanders too near. So too do we see this in drug deals. If drug dealers are not permitted to travel to and from on given tracks of land in given landscaped, they can not do business unless they are enabled to create a land that can be traversed by prospective clients such as on the internet. The internet has provided many businesses a means by which they can artificially extend their territory where their wares can be displayed. Land reform, with respect to ownership, has and remains to be a large issue and has been vicariously transferred in many respects away from the primary problem by being allocated to the idea of property ownership which people become invested in as a surrogate substitute defining some imagined (made up) right. For example, instead of actual land ownership, they come to believe they own that which is permitted to be (duty/tax/tithing free) on a given land such as a vehicle, or boat on some waterway or plane on some airway. There are of course other surrogate rights such as the presumed allowance to speak freely to a public on a given land while occupying another given land where one is speaking from, such as in the case of a radio station. Multiple believed-in non-actual land rights are distracting people from seeing that all their rights are being fashioned and manipulated by the underlying issues of land ownership, control and usage. You change this trio and you alter the political, social and economic landscapes. Land management bureaucracies actually play a much smaller role than one might initially think, since they are a go-between the public and larger government practices.

Three brief examples of the property ownership issue in historical contexts related to home ownership: (The History of Home Ownership by Lisa Siranovich • Jun 29, 2019)

  1. Ancient Egypt
    • In the time of the great pharaohs, most people believed that the land itself was the possession of the Gods. However, it was the country's governing powers that almost exclusively managed and controlled the land, doling out parcels to its citizens in exchange for various services. While these services were mainly agricultural and involved working on the land they lived on, there was no exchange of currency involved and the subject and their families were never permitted any real interest in the land or the dwellings they built there.
  2. Rome
    • By the time the Romans were dominating the earth, home and property ownership were the literal basis of what society was founded upon. During this time citizens were arranged into classes, with each class being afforded a different set of rights and privileges than the next. These were based almost entirely on wealth and real estate. In fact, the wealthiest men – those that owned the most land – were so well-off that their empires were run almost exclusively by "lesser" men. Home ownership by the citizen class was possible, especially in towns and cities outside of Rome. However, unless freed, slaves could never own property because they themselves were considered property incapable of ownership or any rights at all.
  3. Medieval Europe
    • Home ownership in medieval Europe wasn’t ownership at all. In most areas people lived according to the serfdom system, whereby one wealthy person – called a "lord" – owned all the lands in the area. However, the lords let the local peoples erect buildings and work pieces of land in return for services performed for the lord. The trouble was that the citizens had no rights to their land or homes and could be forced out of them at any time- including by all-too-often wars between lords and other serfdoms.

As for property rights aligned to the rights of women, one should take an historical view such as this example, yet it must be noted that the actual ability of a woman and others in given societies may have been exceptionally difficult, despite being afforded equal rights in one respect or another. (Women's rights and their money: a timeline from Cleopatra to Lilly Ledbetter)

For example, one may have the right to own land, but getting the land is so difficult that the right is rendered moot. Likewise, from a present day perspective, while the U.S. government proclaims everyone has the right to work, this does not equate with the right to have a job that pays a livable wage nor that they won't be exploited by a business whose interest in primarily in making a profit regardless of the needs of workers. The right to work is frequently viewed as a political move to thwart the advance of Unions from becoming too powerful and usurp the ability of political parties from being able to exhibit their own types of manipulative control over given sectors of society. Unions have been known to develop into their own type of political party which support those candidates who favor the adoption of a Union which forces all employees to join (and pay a tax call dues) or be told they are not permitted to work, despite the benefits Unions have given to the whole working class of people. The Right to Work law is also seen as a government-back support for the Wealthy being able to circumvent workers rights to insure they aren't exploited.

It is interesting to note that land ownership is today frequently equated with home ownership and that property is referred to as "Real" estate, as opposed to a "False" estate, or "Imaginary" estate one might want to humorously guess. It is also of interest to note that the word "lord", once relegated to being a description of a religious figure up in heaven or set high on a pedestal such as a throne, was adopted to denote those who perceived themselves to be "above" others.

The question of what is and what is not property has been addressed by many people, but John Locke is credited with having promoted the development of our present concept based on some supposed natural right a person has to the ownership of their own body in terms of labor. Take for example this account example: Lockean Property Rights (The following is taken out of a much larger draft.):

...According to Locke, Divine Providence has been equally generous to human beings, providing natural goods in creation for our common use. But, he writes, "there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other before they can be of any use." This is what generates the puzzle about legitimacy. If the natural bounty has been given to us in common, how can any individual legitimately claim ownership and control rights over it? How does a resource, like an area of land, change from one day something that Brody (John Doe) can use to meet his needs to the next day something that Dorothy (Jane Doe) is permitted to exclude Brody from using, even to the point of using coercive force to exclude him? How can it be legitimate to change from a system of common use, where everyone is equal, to one that leads to the "disproportionate and unequal Possession of the Earth"?

Locke's answer, and the first part of his theory grounding the legitimacy of original appropriation, is labor. He is proposing a unilateral account since it does not depend on the imprimatur of a political authority or the consent or acknowledgment of a community. Instead it depends simply upon Dorothy's decision to "mix" her labor with the land, say, by sowing it. This is because, first, it is evident by the light of nature that individuals, subject to God's prior claim to everything as its Creator, are self-owners. Individuals also, therefore, own their labor. To mix that labor with unowned things in the world distinctively connects those items to the individual laborer. One's labor infuses them with the same rights one has with respect to one's body, including the rights to control, use and exclude others from it. It is as if by some moral power they have become an extension of the self. Among everyone who exists and who might have used these items, no one else has a relationship as normatively close and significant, and that difference solves the problem of who enjoys all the relevant control rights...

(The term "mix" in the foregoing can be referenced as hybridization. The use of the word Hybrid and its corollaries is useful when looking at other subjects whose vernaculars may otherwise not afford us with an easy means of making comparisons. In place of a universal language vocabulary which permits looking at different subjects and making useful comparisons which might provide enhanced insights and further ideological developments, a single word such as hybridization might suffice for some readers. Even mathematics, though some think otherwise, is not a lingua franca (universal language) which provides for an immediate and accurate dialog amongst diverse thinkers and speakers.

Date of Origination: Friday, 30th July, 2021... 6:38 AM
Date of Initial Posting: Friday, 30th July, 2021... 12:24 PM
Update: Monday, December 6th, 2021... 8:43 AM