Does one have property rights to their country?

[Julian]

Economist Lant Pritchett claims we do in an interview he did in Reason Magazine. My understanding is no. A right is absolute, and it belongs to an individual, not a collective.

Edited December 28, 2007 by Julian

[adrock3215]

I'm not sure I understand the issue. You ask "Does one have property rights to their country?" By one, do you mean a government or a particular individual? I think I am not understanding the question because you used "one" and "their."

I believe Lant Pritchett is a welfare-state economist from the Keynes mold. Not sure about that though. If someone could confirm please post it.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Economist Lant Pritchett claims we do [have property rights to one's country] in an interview he did in Reason Magazine. My understanding is no. A right is absolute, and it belongs to an individual, not a collective.

This seems like a strange approach to governments, if he is saying that we own our government like we own our car. A proper government is one in which property rights are upheld, so their primary purpose is to secure our individual rights via the retribution of force against those trying to take away our rights. Now, do I own that government that does that; I don't know, like owning General Motors? In other words, can I give orders to those working for the government the way I could if I owned General Motors? Can I go up to a policeman or other government agent and order him to do something for me? I don't think it works that way or even that it should work that way. All of that force -- or force wielding individuals -- must be governed by proper procedures to insure that individual rights are not being violated in the process of upholding individual rights in general. So, I couldn't give an order to shoot that man who I claim stole my car; but if I owned General Motors, I could give an order to paint a particular car a particular color, just on my orders.

If he is saying that taking away a government, say in a war, is a violation of property rights; I'm still not sure I would agree with that. Such a war would potentially violate my individual rights, if my country's government upheld rights and it was wiped out in a war, then I would no longer have an agency to uphold my rights -- but is that in and of itself a violation of my property rights? I don't think I agree with that, as phrased, but I would like to see a quote from what Pritchett in order to better assess what he means.

[DavidOdden]

If you own something, it is yours to dispose of as you wish. Since that's demonstrably not the case with a country (that's at best a communist notion), we can conclude that Lant Pritchett is insane or a commie. The claim implies, for example, that you own my house and car. If you modify the claim to "we all collectively own the government", again, that is false (I cannot sell the US government to the highest bidder, I cannot drop the US government in a wastebasket thereby disposing of the property). But of course, a proper commie would deny the concept of property in the first place, so I'm voting that he's an insane commie.

[agrippa1]

...I'm voting that he's an insane commie.

According to his wiki-blurb, he was a contributor to something called the "Copenhagen Consensus."

So it looks like you're spot on.

[Beowulf]

Economist Lant Pritchett claims we do in an interview he did in Reason Magazine. My understanding is no. A right is absolute, and it belongs to an individual, not a collective.

Does one have property rights to their country? No, not in the sense that you can try to sell a piece of your country or the national road network to the highest bidder. But you do have a natural right to your country in the sense of living and existing there and deciding who gets to enter to visit, work or settle there. And thus we would have to say that that right is collective and belongs to the people? This would not in any way threaten the right to private property and having a capitalist economy as I see it.

We have a mystical bond between blood and soil. You are connected to the land of your ancestors, your people, your bloodline has lived in that country for 3000 years or so and thereby you have a natural right to it. Just because you are spiritually connected to it. Blood and soil are connected. This is easy to understand when you think about a farmer who farms the land of his ancestors. His is not just connected to the farmland in an economical sense even though he can choose to sell it.

[agrippa1]

But you do have a natural right to your country in the sense of living and existing there and deciding who gets to enter to visit, work or settle there. And thus we would have to say that that right is collective and belongs to the people? This would not in any way threaten the right to private property and having a capitalist economy as I see it.

There is no such thing as a "collective right." There is no such thing as "the people," except as an abstract concept. A group of individuals might agree to pool their resources for their own benefit in some venture, but by doing so, they forfeit those resources to their actors (gov't), in hope that the result of the effort will benefit them individually. A government consists of the collected rights, power, and wealth forfeited by the individuals of a state.

We certainly (in America) don't have the "right" to decide who gets to visit, work or settle here. (You might agree with the gov't on those issues, but that's a different thing)

As for our right to live here, that "right" is contingent upon our acquiescence (not consent) to the enforced expropriation of the results of our life's efforts. That is not a "right," it's a ransom.

[DavidOdden]

But you do have a natural right to your country in the sense of living and existing there and deciding who gets to enter to visit, work or settle there.

You're half right and half wrong: you have the first right, and not the second right. But you also have the right to live and exist in Canada or Germany or even France, so it turns out that your right to live and exist isn't related what what country is your country.

And thus we would have to say that that right is collective and belongs to the people?

What in the world is a "collective right"? How does it belong to "the people"? Does that mean it is not actually property, and that the notion of "owning" a country is utter nonsense?

We have a mystical bond between blood and soil.

That's very funny! Very good line there!!

You are connected to the land of your ancestors, your people, your bloodline has lived in that country for 3000 years or so and thereby you have a natural right to it.

Yeah, okay, now you've milked the joke for all it's worth. You heard the rim shot, take the applause and move on.

Just because you are spiritually connected to it. Blood and soil are connected. This is easy to understand when you think about a farmer who farms the land of his ancestors. His is not just connected to the farmland in an economical sense even though he can choose to sell it.

OMG you are serious. You actually mean this. Do you believe in dragons? Are you an insane collectivist, tribal Asatru cultist? Come on, tell me this is just a prank!

[Beowulf]

You're half right and half wrong: you have the first right, and not the second right. But you also have the right to live and exist in Canada or Germany or even France, so it turns out that your right to live and exist isn't related what what country is your country.What in the world is a "collective right"? How does it belong to "the people"? Does that mean it is not actually property, and that the notion of "owning" a country is utter nonsense?That's very funny! Very good line there!!Yeah, okay, now you've milked the joke for all it's worth. You heard the rim shot, take the applause and move on.OMG you are serious. You actually mean this. Do you believe in dragons? Are you an insane collectivist, tribal Asatru cultist? Come on, tell me this is just a prank!

Sorry no prank. I really mean this.

My ideas about bond between blood and soil do not stem from a collectivist movement. Personally I have all my life felt this bond that I talk about independently of external sources. I am from Norway and what I talk about is there common in the people. Many farmers in my country go on running their farms simply because of that bond, not because of economical gains (they usually have other jobs as their source of income). So if my ideas are a bit over the edge for you then they are perfectly normal in my country.

When I was in high school we were represented with literature and texts that contained such ideas about bond between blood and soil. The Norwegian national identity is actually built upon this material. So if my ideas are a bit over the edge for you then they are perfectly normal in my country. This idea is even forms part of our stance against becoming member of the European Union.

This is probably going to sound a bit schizofrenic to you but I actually don´t understand what is the problem with being both capitalist/Randist and understanding a collective right to the people´s country.

[Beowulf]

There is no such thing as a "collective right." There is no such thing as "the people," except as an abstract concept.

How come The People doesn´t exist? There are lots of ethnic groups in this world.

A group of individuals might agree to pool their resources for their own benefit in some venture, but by doing so, they forfeit those resources to their actors (gov't), in hope that the result of the effort will benefit them individually. A government consists of the collected rights, power, and wealth forfeited by the individuals of a state.

We certainly (in America) don't have the "right" to decide who gets to visit, work or settle here. (You might agree with the gov't on those issues, but that's a different thing)

Well, in such an ideal state where we all by our free will decide to pool our resources by giving some of it to the government, would that government be allowed by law to generously hand out your money to non-citizens?

Let´s say you choose to belong to the same state as your parents did (in an ideal world). (I assume in an ideal world there is always a choice?) Would you then not say that the infrastructure of that state which partly was built with the money of your parents, is that not your rightful economical heritage? Or would you pay a certain amount of money to buy yourself into that state´s infrastructure?

And finally if we put all economical aspects aside. Would it not be wise to actively discriminate on who would get to enter the ideal capitalist state? Say for example that 90% of the immigrants would be communist, or maybe they would be so religious that they would not have church and state separated? That would be a threat to a capitalist state. With time a major influx of such immigrants would manage to rewrite your constitution or at least totally change the way law is practiced regardless of the constitution.

As for our right to live here, that "right" is contingent upon our acquiescence (not consent) to the enforced expropriation of the results of our life's efforts. That is not a "right," it's a ransom.

I think that there are other nations in this world that are more capitalistic than USA. I suppose it would be possible to relocate to one of those countries if you seek the highest degree of individual freedom and have no particular bond to America that holds you back.

[DavidOdden]

Many farmers in my country go on running their farms simply because of that bond, not because of economical gains (they usually have other jobs as their source of income).

That doesn't mean that there is a mystical bond between dirt and body fluids. It represents one of 3 things: lethargy, ignorance, or a conscious choice of values. Some people (way too many!) stay in the same valley because they simply can't be bothered to pursue a more productive life; they don't even know that it's possible to exist except by goat-farming or fishing, as the case may be; or they decide 'I'd rather be a goat-farmer and be able to ski down this mountain every day, than be an industrialist and have to fly 1,000 miles once a year to ski'. In other words, this 'bond' has nothing to do with blood or dirt, it has to do with culture, and what you learn. Genetic Norwegians who haven't lived in Norway don't have this 'bond'. Of course that is not to deny the existence of the successful romantic nationalism propaganda movement based on the "connection to the land" myth, but that is so two centuries ago. But this is all learned and chosen, and not related to blood or dirt.

This idea is even forms part of our stance against becoming member of the European Union.

You mean voting member. You're already in the EU in just about every significant respect except for having a vote.

This is probably going to sound a bit schizofrenic to you but I actually don´t understand what is the problem with being both capitalist/Randist and understanding a collective right to the people´s country.

Have you read The Virtue of Selfishness? I strongly recommend it. The three essays therein that I commend to you are "The Objectivist Ethics", "Man's Rights" and "Collectivized Rights". Grab a copy and let's see if that clarifies things for you.

How come The People doesn´t exist? There are lots of ethnic groups in this world.

How do you determine what ethnic group you're in? Are people from Kristiansand really in the same ethnic group as people from Vadsø? Are people from Charlottenberg a different People than those from Magnor (near Eidskog, if you don't know the area). I'm not even touching the matter of Kautokeino. What is the objective basis of "ethnic group". How do you relate "The People" to an ethnic group. Would you propose a racial purity test so that only Pure Norwegians would be part of The People in most of Norway, except that only Pure Saami would be The People in Finnmark? Immigrants including those who moved in 500 years ago would then be expelled, or at least would have no rights? Again, I suggest that you read up on Objectivist ethics, to understand why it is that individuals have rights.

[softwareNerd]

Personally I have all my life felt this bond [between blood and soil ].

I don't doubt many people feel some affinity for things they've grown up with: the place, the food, the music. However, one needs to get beyond ascribing it to a mystical notion of a bond between blood and soil. That expression can be used metaphorically, of course, but not literally. A Chinese does not have any deeper bond between blood and noodles than I do. It is important to understand which values are optional and which ones are not. Further, it makes sense to explore the optional values of others, for there is much value to be found in them. By all means, retain your love for your optional values, but do not confuse them with non-optionals.

Closer to topic, since Objectivism's notion of Capitalism is built on individual rights, the only legitimate reason to keep people out of a country would be in order to protect the rights (the life, liberty, property etc.) of citizens. It cannot be based on an assumed collective right of existing citizens to keep outsiders out for whatever reason they choose. Such a collective right does not exist. Each individual citizen has the right to keep people off their property. Let them put up "No Foreigners" signs if they like; and, if there are enough of them, we can talk about how it can be practically enforced. However, we cannot create arbitrary rights. In the typical case, what xenophobic citizens are asking for is not the right to prevent a Mexican gardener from doing their lawns, but the right to stop their American neighbor from allowing a Mexican gardener to do his. From where can such a right be imagined to arise?

In your posts, you make one argument that can be construed to be from a "defense of rights" viewpoint. This is when you speak of the danger of immigrants not understanding individual rights, and voting to take the country to some other system. As we see in the U.S., the native population is quite capable of doing this without help from others. Anyhow, as a practical matter, this might mean restrictions on who gets to vote, not on who gets to visit, work and immigrate.

[fletch]

Are people from Kristiansand really in the same ethnic group as people from Vadsø? Are people from Charlottenberg a different People than those from Magnor (near Eidskog, if you don't know the area).

Being from Columbus, David, you should be well aware that people from Michigan are, in fact, quite different from those from Ohio. There is plenty of research that would indicate that the people from Michigan are quite possibly from a different species altogether.

[DavidOdden]

There is plenty of research that would indicate that the people from Michigan are quite possibly from a different species altogether.

Yup. Gulo gulo.

[Beowulf]

The feeling of some sort of bond (mystical, emotional or spiritual or however we choose to name it) with a territory wether it is your private farm or your country is not culture. Remember that we are also born with a set of behavioural predispositions in us that are present on a genetical level. So then developing some bond with a piece of land while we grow up is not so strange given that the human being as a species evolved in close relationship with use of land. First as hunters when we as all other predatory species were possessive and fought for our hunting territory, then later as farmers it still made sense to feel connected to and protective of our lands. Being intelligent and spiritual we were also able to do more than the animals and look back on our heritage and bloodline that had occupied that land for generations and have a deeper experience of some kind (spiritual). I think that if our ancestors did not experience any such connection then they would loose the land sooner or later and then evolutionary speaking you were a dead end.

I understand that you people here do not feel what I feel. Well, the thing with us humans is that genes can be turned on and off. It is part of our normal function and happens to us during our lives as we age or are confronted with new life situations, and that changes our thinking and behaviour during our lives. So since I feel something for land then it might mean that my genes have been switched on all my life due to significant environmental stimulation (living close to the land in a rural place) while your genes for this have never been properly activated.

There are things in our lives that simply are there and they are real to us. Love is one such thing. Being connected to the land and country is another such thing. I usually think that such emotional or spiritual functions in us are there because they in the past were beneficial for the most effective reproduction of our ancestors´ genes.

So then what I want to get at is that if I get to say that I love a woman and want to marry her then I should also get to say that I am connected to my land and want to decide who gets to live there. Both things are just part of my all human biology.

[DavidOdden]

Remember that we are also born with a set of behavioural predispositions in us that are present on a genetical level.

I can't remember that because it's not true. Humans are very different from animals. We don't have homing or migratory instincts. You can't confuse ancient evolution with modern man -- we are not the same species as those monkey ancestors of millions of years ago. Many tens of thousands of years, or a hundred thousand years ago, we ceased being a predatory species, and became a thinking species -- homo sapiens.

First as hunters when we as all other predatory species were possessive and fought for our hunting territory, then later as farmers it still made sense to feel connected to and protective of our lands.

Those are choices that we have learned and chosen -- if we choose them. It would be stupid for a farmer to not work to preserve his land -- if he doesn't want to, he should do something else for a living.

I think that if our ancestors did not experience any such connection then they would loose the land sooner or later and then evolutionary speaking you were a dead end.

Well, my ancestors in fact did not feel the connection to the land, and they left, and here I am, not dead.

[Beowulf]

You mean voting member. You're already in the EU in just about every significant respect except for having a vote.

Yes that is right. The people voted no to membership because we did not want to be member of the European Union and then our politicians gave us this deal with the European Union instead so now we have plenty of laws being passed on us, we pay billions to cover the EU expansion into Eastern Europe, and we don´t get to vote in the EU about the things that we have to obey. It´s a mess but being rich and fat we are not exactly ready for a revolution against our politicians.

Have you read The Virtue of Selfishness? I strongly recommend it. The three essays therein that I commend to you are "The Objectivist Ethics", "Man's Rights" and "Collectivized Rights". Grab a copy and let's see if that clarifies things for you.

I will write them up on my list of books to read. Are they on internet?

How do you determine what ethnic group you're in?

Basically just like everyone else in this world I do it in a very unscientific manner. I listen to what I feel about it.

What is interesting is that people manage to designate themselves and others to the correct ethnical group. If you try to use various measurable traits such as language, ethics, psychology, race and more then you discover that people pretty much get things correctly all on their own.

Are people from Kristiansand really in the same ethnic group as people from Vadsø? Are people from Charlottenberg a different People than those from Magnor (near Eidskog, if you don't know the area). I'm not even touching the matter of Kautokeino. What is the objective basis of "ethnic group". How do you relate "The People" to an ethnic group. Would you propose a racial purity test so that only Pure Norwegians would be part of The People in most of Norway, except that only Pure Saami would be The People in Finnmark? Immigrants including those who moved in 500 years ago would then be expelled, or at least would have no rights? Again, I suggest that you read up on Objectivist ethics, to understand why it is that individuals have rights.

The north of Norway is somewhat complicated. There you have Saamis, Finns and Norwegians. The rest of the country is simple. There you have an even population of Norwegians. Although of course there is no real science done on this due to the political incorrectness of it so I just have to speak from my own observation and common knowledge of my country´s history.

In the question of if Norwegians should be only "pure" Norwegians or what then I think that each ethnical group in this world needs to be evaluated individually for setting some sort of definition. For example there are no more pure Saamis left in this world so their ethnical group is thereby a mixed group by definition. Obviesly we cannot make a Zulu from Africa a Saami. As we also cannot make a Chineese a Saami. For being part of the Saamis you have to have Saami blood but you can be mixed with Norwegians, Swedes, Finns or Russians.

Norwegians are quite pure so there we could set the standard to be "quite pure". I am not going to give any genetical percentage because that would have to come from scientific research done by mapping the Norwegians.

Kicking someone out of Norway because their great great...... grandfather in the year 1498 was an Italian sailor is of course out of the question. On my part I would say that the Norwegian population is defined by those Norwegians who lived in Norway from before the recent mass immigration that began 30 years ago.

[Beowulf]

I can't remember that because it's not true. Humans are very different from animals. We don't have homing or migratory instincts. You can't confuse ancient evolution with modern man -- we are not the same species as those monkey ancestors of millions of years ago. Many tens of thousands of years, or a hundred thousand years ago, we ceased being a predatory species, and became a thinking species -- homo sapiens.Those are choices that we have learned and chosen -- if we choose them. It would be stupid for a farmer to not work to preserve his land -- if he doesn't want to, he should do something else for a living.Well, my ancestors in fact did not feel the connection to the land, and they left, and here I am, not dead.

This is all wrong. There is a field of biological science called human behavioural ecology. It is represented in USA and as I know it in the Northern European nations. Check out this website intended for the scientists of this field if you like: http://www.hbes.com/

Human behavioural ecology as a field of science has actually managed to form one of the carrying structures in modern psychology. So I am bit surprised you didn´t know about this.

Modern man is ancient evolution. We as all other species are what we are today because of what was genetically favourable to our ancestors.

[Beowulf]

Closer to topic, since Objectivism's notion of Capitalism is built on individual rights, the only legitimate reason to keep people out of a country would be in order to protect the rights (the life, liberty, property etc.) of citizens. It cannot be based on an assumed collective right of existing citizens to keep outsiders out for whatever reason they choose. Such a collective right does not exist. Each individual citizen has the right to keep people off their property. Let them put up "No Foreigners" signs if they like; and, if there are enough of them, we can talk about how it can be practically enforced. However, we cannot create arbitrary rights. In the typical case, what xenophobic citizens are asking for is not the right to prevent a Mexican gardener from doing their lawns, but the right to stop their American neighbor from allowing a Mexican gardener to do his. From where can such a right be imagined to arise?

Well, for me it would be the natural right to your nation´s land. It is not a right one can argue for by a logical deduction based on individual rights, because it is something else. So objectivism would not suffice as a tool for clarifying it.

In your posts, you make one argument that can be construed to be from a "defense of rights" viewpoint. This is when you speak of the danger of immigrants not understanding individual rights, and voting to take the country to some other system. As we see in the U.S., the native population is quite capable of doing this without help from others. Anyhow, as a practical matter, this might mean restrictions on who gets to vote, not on who gets to visit, work and immigrate.

It means not getting citizenship then?

But imagene then that one day the country will be so full of immigrants with no right to vote that they will gather courage and soon try to persuade the politicians to be allowed to vote, later they will protest, and in the end it will all escalate into some state of war going on inside your country. Wouldn´t it be better to deal preventively with that and just stop them on the border, not 20 years too late?

Edited December 29, 2007 by Beowulf

[Miles White]

It means not getting citizenship then?

But imagene then that one day the country will be so full of immigrants with no right to vote that they will gather courage and soon try to persuade the politicians to be allowed to vote, later they will protest, and in the end it will all escalate into some state of war going on inside your country. Wouldn´t it be better to deal preventively with that and just stop them on the border, not 20 years too late?

Your entire presumption rests on the fact that all immigrants are evil and want to change our government to fit their evil agenda but this is clearly not the case in at least most of the time. The reason why people come to america would be to seek freedom, not impose their will.

Also, something to keep in mind is that just because someone is foreign doesn't automatically mean that they hate freedom. Lets not forget were Ayn Rand was originally from.

Edited December 30, 2007 by Miles White

[Beowulf]

Your entire presumption rests on the fact that all immigrants are evil and want to change our government to fit their evil agenda but this is clearly not the case in at least most of the time. The reason why people come to america would be to seek freedom, not impose their will.

Also, something to keep in mind is that just because someone is foreign doesn't automatically mean that they hate freedom. Lets not forget were Ayn Rand was originally from.

No, my idea does not rest on the fact that all immigrants are evil. It is just that people do not always (or actually most of the people) understand what freedom is. So if they are not intentionally anti-freedom then they cannot be said to be evil as you put it. The thing with us humans is that we will always try to design society to fit our own ideas. It is just an all human mechanism and no evil agenda.

Today immigration happens from poor countries to better doing countries of North America and North Western Europe. The mechanism is not a quest for increased freedom but for using the economical infrastructure of others in order to profit from it. The same would be the case for an ideal capitalist state. Immigrants would want to enter for the sake of money and not for the sake of freedom.

It is guaranteed that those immigrants would be socialist by majority because the necessity of immigrating would not exist if it were not for that the majority of the citizens in immigrant producing countries would be socialists. If they were not overly socialist but closer to capitalist then their nations would have prospered to the economical level that they see as sufficient and they would not have wished to immigrate. By being too socialist they would simply cause their own economical backwardness and then move on to utilise the economical infrastructure of other people after failing to understand how to construct their own well functioning political/economical infrastructure.

If you then allow huge bulks of such immigrants to enter then they will tend to retain their culture, religion and philosophies. It is a question of numbers. If they are many then they will not drown in the meeting with the recipient culture. They will retain their cultural traits.

So this is where I get to the point of saying that a huge influx of immigrants will unavoidably change the soul of the country and possibly put an end to the free capitalist state. In minimum you will have a war going on inside your own country. Remember the riots of Paris not long ago where North Africans went to war on France and the situation is still not resolved. It could ignite again for any reason any day.

Look at the illegals in USA these days. They even had the nerve to march a couple of hundred thousands to declare that they should not be considered criminals despite breaking the American law every day and every minute of their illegal stay in America. They wanted that the American law should not consider them to be criminals for no other reason except that it was very unpleasant to think about for them.

When you couple this with the information that the great majority of Latin Americans still living in Latin America actually agree with that the illegals are not criminals then this gives you an idea of how skewed entire populations can become in separating right from wrong and the ramifications it will have if you allow such people to come inside a capitalist nation where separating correctly between right and wrong is the essence of everything.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Beowulf

[~Sophia~]

It is just that people do not always (or actually most of the people) understand what freedom is.

Immigrants and non-immigrants equally. Even if you get rid of all of the immigrants in America today, the way things are progressing, the country would still be moving toward socialism.

Today immigration happens from poor countries to better doing countries of North America and North Western Europe. The mechanism is not a quest for increased freedom but for using the economical infrastructure of others in order to profit from it. The same would be the case for an ideal capitalist state. Immigrants would want to enter for the sake of money and not for the sake of freedom.

It is true that profit is the driving force however many of them know why America is more prosperous than their own native land and often more explicitly than Americans.

It is guaranteed that those immigrants would be socialist by majority because the necessity of immigrating would not exist if it were not for that the majority of the citizens in immigrant producing countries would be socialists. If they were not overly socialist but closer to capitalist then their nations would have prospered to the economical level that they see as sufficient and they would not have wished to immigrate.

Those who emigrate often do not represent the views and attitudes of the majority in their native country. People who do not wish to be productive, work hard, and meet challenges are not those who emigrate. The reality of an emigrant life in most cases is harsher than you think.

If they are many then they will not drown in the meeting with the recipient culture. They will retain their cultural traits.

Vancouver has a large Asian community. It does not affect my life one bit.

Look at the illegals in USA these days. They even had the nerve to march a couple of hundred thousands to declare that they should not be considered criminals despite breaking the American law every day and every minute of their illegal stay in America.

The have been organized by American socialist movement, by American Labor Unions.

-----------

In a fully free constitutional republic an influx of large number of immigrants (or irrationality of citizens) would have little to none political impact. That is the idea.

[JMeganSnow]

This is all wrong. There is a field of biological science called human behavioural ecology. It is represented in USA and as I know it in the Northern European nations. Check out this website intended for the scientists of this field if you like: http://www.hbes.com/

Just because a field exists doesn't mean that any or even some of the ideas of the people that study within that field have any validity whatsoever. Astrology exists as a field, too, and so does behavioral psychology, and they're about equally valid.

I've moved 17 times in my life, all throughout the U.S. and Europe. Which particular patch of dirt am I "mystically connected" to?

[~Sophia~]

I've moved 17 times in my life, all throughout the U.S. and Europe. Which particular patch of dirt am I "mystically connected" to?

LOL. I needed a laugh. Thanks, Jenni!