Was talking about this with someone today. People, especially the right-winged, will associate the so-called far left wing with Communism/Marxism. But I find it weird that any scale would just happen to have that as the far end of the spectrum. If you were to go down the scale to the very, very end, what political statement/remark would be the closest thing to the very tip of the spectrum? Something like “the robots should take over” or something?
In all honesty the argument is silly because the concept of “ownership” has a lot of human fluff on top. Animals use a certain area. From a large territory to a single small nest.
Consider the seagull with her nest on the North side of a beautiful artificial garbage island. Her wife and her have their eggs and babies there. They do not also go to the South side of the garbage island and build (or take over) a bunch of other nests that nobody can use without paying rent. The modern human concept of property encompasses this situation. In this example we could also have the gulls refusing to fix defects in the nest while prohibiting the tenants from doing so. Does this sound like typical bird behaviour?
Consider the dog that barks at/attacks anyone who approaches its yard, even though the dog uses it for nothing more than crapping in.
What you are describing sounds more like all leasing is theft - holding property not just for personal use, nor just to deprive others of it (as in the dog), but to extract additional gain.
Certain breeds of dogs have been intentionally made to be that way by humans. The comment I responded to was regard to an unqualified statement about animals in general and as a whole. That there is some inherent sense of “ownership” present to all animals. The argument being best backed up by a domesticated animal shows how silly it is.
Ok, magpies.
No, I don’t think all animals necessarily have a significant sense of ownership. But plenty do.
This is the argument you are defending:
How much roaming territory does a magpie express?
Silly argument.