Tim Thomas wrote:
> Is "ownership" really a very good metaphor? Is talk of 'ownership'
> tantamount to thinking of the past as a commodity? Can the past
> really be said to be able to be 'owned'?
Usufruct Under Strict Terms, seems to me a better idea.
You've accurately put the problem that the meaning of "ownership" has to
possess quite a special meaning here, if any, since by itself it
includes the -unthinkable- right even to destroy the past's remnants.
I don't believe that individual ownership is the true problem. Its
rights are already limited in many countries, as they should be for the
rest and perhaps under more austere regulations, always oriented towards
the best possible preservation.
It's obvious that the real problem arises from internationalism vs.
state/ethnic ownership. Pure internationalism can lead to looting (all
too known from the past) and political (state/ethnic) ownership can lead
to negligence and destruction (all too known from the past and the
present). And so, you are right, the only reasonable answer is to
abolish altogether "ownership" of the past, in its usual meaning.
On the other hand, usufruct's definition provides its main conception.
"The right of enjoying the use and advantages of another person's
property, on condition that one does not harm or waste it."
It is self evident that as "other person" should be considered humanity
as an entity, under its -best presently- representative, that of UNESCO.
Three further implications are quite obvious:
a. to neglect the usufruct's object of interest is right analogue to
harm it and in the long run, to waste it. Subsequently, negligence
should be considered as equivalent to direct damage.
b. extraordinary interventions, be for preservation, or for whatever
other purpose, can also be considered as potentially harmful.
A minimal scientific and international consensus should be established
as a precondition for retaining full right of usufruct.
c. the virtual owner's (humanity, by its representative) right to
inspect the condition of any disputable objects of interest and to
ensure that any information originating from them is constantly and
unconditionally accessible to scientific community.
A judicial-like scientific corps can be responsible for upholding
usufruct's right, again possibly under such an organism as UNESCO. The
lifting of usufruct's right has to be unquestionably predefined as
temporary, for a renewable, but prefixed period of time.
One more thing:
Usufruct's right should be lowered to its minimum potent and rightful
beholder. As rightful beholder can be considered the existing one, from
the lower level and upwards. (e.g. ethnic group/city, county, state,
country). But this should be necessarily accompanied by the "potent"
part. That is, if a city is potent of what is required, or a county,
etc. and upwards.
Fostering (e.g. by a foreign university/institution) can be always an
option to cover a local impotency for usufruct's obligations.
I won't push it any longer, as -I believe- my position is clear enough.
Details for terms and sanctions can be easily determined and enforced
worldwide, if only logic could prevail (which it doesn't, but that's
another story :-)). -
Christos Galanis
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|