Remember how so many people predicted that the US would turn Iraq into a puppet state and then proceed to 'steal the oil'...that being the supposed original intention? Actually, this line of reasoning is ongoing.

But, now that a significant amount of time has passed, maybe its time to take a look and see if this is really happening.

Is the US getting Iraqi oil for free or for less than market value? Are they even buying it in significant quantities?

The plan was to make billions on Iraqi oil but the civil war, failed US military policy and the exodus of contractors have put all those grand ideas into the ash heap of history.

The plan was to make billions on Iraqi oil but the civil war, failed US military policy and the exodus of contractors have put all those grand ideas into the ash heap of history.
How do you 'know' that was the plan, or is it simply what you 'believe'?

How do you 'know' that was the plan, or is it simply what you 'believe'?

He's a marxist. What do you think?

Is the US getting Iraqi oil for free or for less than market value? Are they even buying it in significant quantities?
America does not own mideastern oil , nor does America get mideastern oil cheap what is implied by stealing the oil , is this . Mideastern nations own the oil wells and the oil in these wells there is no problems about this . The US petroleum corporations control the global distribution of Mid Eastern oil that is where problem comes in . The higher the oil prices go the better for American petroleum corporations . The oil wealth of Saudi Arabia , Kuwait and Iraq is distributed by the US corporations to its biggest market the EU with Japan and Asia a secondary market . Profits from global oil sales goes into the pockets of US corporations .

Iran on the other hand completely nationalized its oil industry in 1979 after ousting the Shah and Iran began to sell its oil outside of US control of distribution . The EU in the late 1990s began to make overtures to Iran in petroleum supply contracts that would make Iran its principal supplier . This would see the US lose a large share of its profits and see The EU which is Americas principal economic competitor gain a foothold in Mideast ern oil industry and become a thraet to US dominance . This is the source of the current conflict with America and Iran , America must bring Iran within its orbit of influence or lose big time .

How do you 'know' that was the plan, or is it simply what you 'believe'?Do you really think the USA invaded because our govt. was concerned about the lack of democracy in Iraq?! If so why ignore over a dozen other countries with far worse human rights violations, starting with the DR of Congo and Rwanda. Was it because the USA feared that Iraq would invade the US!!! :p Or was it because the intention was to overthrow Hussein, get the oil flowing and pay for the war that way. Why else were hundreds of oil contractors from the USA living temporarily in Jordan awaiting the green light to plunder Iraq?

Do you really think the USA invaded because our govt. was concerned about the lack of democracy in Iraq?! If so why ignore over a dozen other countries with far worse human rights violations, starting with the DR of Congo and Rwanda. Was it because the USA feared that Iraq would invade the US!!! :p Or was it because the intention was to overthrow Hussein, get the oil flowing and pay for the war that way. Why else were hundreds of oil contractors from the USA living temporarily in Jordan awaiting the green light to plunder Iraq?

No I personally DO NOT believe that the US went in there to free anybody. I suspect they went in because Israel wanted them to get rid of an enemy. Israel calls the shots on much of US foreign policy in the mid east.

I'd just like to see some evidence that the US is stealing the oil, IF that is indeed the case.

Do you really think the USA invaded because our govt. was concerned about the lack of democracy in Iraq?! If so why ignore over a dozen other countries with far worse human rights violations, starting with the DR of Congo and Rwanda. Was it because the USA feared that Iraq would invade the US!!! :p Or was it because the intention was to overthrow Hussein, get the oil flowing and pay for the war that way. Why else were hundreds of oil contractors from the USA living temporarily in Jordan awaiting the green light to plunder Iraq?


Are you mad? Don't you know Saddam was working on a MEGA-WMD that would destroy the US? :D

Considering how "weak" the US is militarily, they had to go over and stop him before it was too late!

Iran on the other hand completely nationalized its oil industry in 1979 after ousting the Shah and Iran began to sell its oil outside of US control of distribution . The EU in the late 1990s began to make overtures to Iran in petroleum supply contracts that would make Iran its principal supplier . This would see the US lose a large share of its profits and see The EU which is Americas principal economic competitor gain a foothold in Mideast ern oil industry and become a thraet to US dominance . This is the source of the current conflict with America and Iran , America must bring Iran within its orbit of influence or lose big time. This isn't about Iran, its about Iraq.

Is there any concrete evidence that either the US government or its corporations is getting Iraqi oil for free, or below market values?

No I personally DO NOT believe that the US went in there to free anybody. I suspect they went in because Israel wanted them to get rid of an enemy. Israel calls the shots on much of US foreign policy in the mid east.

I'd just like to see some evidence that the US is stealing the oil, IF that is indeed the case.
Your Israel connection has merit as well.

Your Israel connection has merit as well.It was a very convenient opportunity to take military action that could never have been justified otherwise.

It was a very convenient opportunity to do so.
I recall Saddam firing Scuds at Israel. Who is the pimp and who is the whore in the US/Israel relationship I wonder.

Did you know the ME has blacklisted Israel since many years?

Who is the pimp and who is the whore in the US/Israel relationship I wonder.
Well...?
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

Well...?
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

What does Israel have on the US? :confused:

edit: ok I read the whole article.

Wow, no wonder GWB is keeping mum.

What does Israel have on the US? :confused:
The pimp/whore analogy doesn't really fit, now that I think about it.

A whore at least keeps some of the money she makes...the US doesn't derive any benefit whatsoever from its symbiotic relationship with Israel.

This isn't about Iran, its about Iraq.

Is there any concrete evidence that either the US government or its corporations is getting Iraqi oil for free, or below market values?
The idea was America would sell Iraqi oil to finance the rebuilding of Iraqs infrastructure and pay for its occupation . However the EU the principal market is not buying Iraqi oil so Iraqi oil industry is remains unrepaired because the US has no money to rebuild it .

The idea was America would sell Iraqi oil to finance the rebuilding of Iraqs infrastructure and pay for its occupation . However the EU the principal market is not buying Iraqi oil so Iraqi oil industry is remains unrepaired because the US has no money to rebuild it .

Why is the EU not buying Iraqi oil?

And who are they buying from then?

They aren't proof please?

the US doesn't derive any benefit whatsoever
If that's true, then the US government is dumber than I thought.

But US support comes with strings attached. I read somewhere that China wouldn't mind buying weapons technology from Israel, but the US wouldn't hear of it.

Probably a good thing, considering China's human rights record...

I read somewhere that China wouldn't mind buying weapons technology from Israel, but the US wouldn't hear of it.
A paragraph from the essay I linked a few posts back:

"A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders). Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorised transfers’. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally’. In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value."

No need to steal oil to make great profits. Just sell it at much higher than the production costs (roughly $10/barrel in pre-war Iraq and Saudi Arbia). GWB and his "Oil CEO government" are making historically high profits for his oil industry friends at the expense of the US public.

Following is third footnote for my recent post in the "Oil at $200 per Barrel" thread of this forum.

***To illustrated how much GWB has distorted the historic US / ME relationships, note that Bush the father had the logistic support of and even some troops from Syria in the first war against Saddam's Iraq. Prior US presidents, especially Clinton, were able to work for peace in the ME, but GWB is only able to make wars there and destroy the development of democracies there. (There was one in Pakistan and Lebanon prior to GWB's wars and none has been achieved. Even nations are being destroyed - Sudan etc. and Iraq will soon be split into three separate ones. Then there will be civil war in Turkey as the Kurds in the south try to join the new Kurdistan created from destroyed Iraq.) In the thread “worst President” there is no contest for the title.

The $200 oil GWB is producing and the suburban infrastructure created by cheap gas when combined with the "twin deficits" GWB has produced (Clinton had budget surpluses, without GWB's war costs, “reward your friends” economic policies, oil CEO government for oil industry, etc.) plus lack of local food, will be reason why US collapses into chaos of armed gangs, looking for food in suburban basements.

Billy, you really think the US is destined to implode. Haven't people been saying this for years? Oh , but this time...

Deleted

Paying for it in dollars that you did not have to work for, instead of Euros that you would have to work for.


What?

Remember how so many people predicted that the US would turn Iraq into a puppet state and then proceed to 'steal the oil'...that being the supposed original intention? Actually, this line of reasoning is ongoing.

But, now that a significant amount of time has passed, maybe its time to take a look and see if this is really happening.

Is the US getting Iraqi oil for free or for less than market value? Are they even buying it in significant quantities?

In my humble opinion they never intended to steal the oil, because they never needed to. All they went to Iraq to do, was to protect the dollar monopoly on oil, i.e kick Saddam out, who was selling oil for Euros.

What?

The US can print as many dollars as it likes, and then buy oil with it, I believe is what Ron was saying. Whereas, the rest of the world has to work for its cash (you see, in the rest of the world, money is actually worth something) and then buy dollars to buy oil.

Which is completely ridiculous.

What's stopping countries from selling oil in other currencies?

Billy, you really think the US is destined to implode. Haven't people been saying this for years? ...Yes, and the evidence is accumulating that I have good foresight. See post of extracts from article that appear in Forbes in thread "How DUMB can US Voters Be? " of the Politics forum, small part of that post is reproduced here:

http://www.forbes.com/personalfinan...oapbox_inl.html

There, you will find three graphs (for those too lazy to read the long text):

(1) US personnel saving rate, (1960 to 2006). Showings it has gone from +12% to -1.7%; (Half of this 46 years of drop under GWB's economic guidance, as is the conversion from Clinton's surpluses to GWB's record setting federal deficits!)

(2) Debt Service Payments as percent of disposable income and CPI, (consumer price index, 1980 thur Q1 of 2006). Showing Debt Service fraction of your spendable income is up 40% and CPI has slightly more than doubled. Thus, even if your salary has more than doubled, your dept is 40% harder to carry. - Probably the main reason why first graph now has -1.7% saving rate. I.e. "Joe American," like "Uncle Sam," can no longer pay his expenses, but must continuely go deeper into debt each year. (How long do you think that can last, or is that a paraniod concern?)

(3) Existing median home price and CPI, (1990 to 2006). Showing they tracked each other well until 1996, but now home price is up 240% and CPI only 160%. Obviously this also can not last, but must correct. Never can any significant component of an average (any sort of average) continue to increase rapidly compared to the average itself.

All of the oil-producing countries of the world have either been bullied or bribed into only selling oil in dollars. For example, Saudi Arabia, from where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from, is great buddies with the USA despite the scant civil liberties of its citizens, harems, and their government wanting to bring back slavery....the reason? They agreed to only sell oil in dollars. The second they went back on this agreement they'd be labelled "terrorists".

It's widely known as "The Global Extortion Racket"

Even Russia???

Even Russia, although that might soon change.

What's stopping countries from selling oil in other currencies?Two things, mainly:

(1) US bases in Saudi Arabia and the agreement with Royal House of Saudi to punish any other country (by pumping excess of oil demand to destroy the price they would receive) if they dared sell oil for Euros etc. The US part of agreement was to insure democracy did not come and sweep away the unpopular royal family, which is very backward in all human rights, compared even to China. - Women not allowed to drive, appear in public without male relative, many political prisoners (higher % of population than China, etc.)

(2) Thread and example of Iraq which dared to try to sell oil for Euros. Iran is now threatening to do so, so of course US will (probably via Israel proxy) make war on them also. Saudi Family kept there side of the agreement when Iraq began selling oil for Euros. - Remember when the price did dip to less than $15/barrel a few months before the war began? (During the uncertainty of war, the Saudi fields could not pump fast enough to hold oil price down, but by then US was punishing Saddam for his sin against the dollar.)

So much for "Freedom and Democracy".

Even Russia, although that might soon change.Yes, Russia has now passed Saudi Arabia as world's greatest oil producer. I think Norway or at least the North Sea field is number three after the now second place Saudis, Perhaps US is # 4 and Venesuala or Nigeria is #5. Please some one Google and correct my guess (I am sure Russia recently claimed first postion, so look at date of your search results. Russia has been #1 for a month or two in the past, but will now hold that position into the foreseeable future.)

who cares abowt eourope or the midle east america shuld blow up the intire midle east and frans to.

who cares abowt eourope or the midle east america shuld blow up the intire midle east and frans to.Good to see Dixie's "red necks" still can not think.

The US lost it's base in Saudi Arabia, but the whole US economy is based on oil, so he felt it necessary to secure the oil for the market. They didn't want to steal it as such, they just want to keep it flowing with no interference. They did steal billions from the US treasury for contractors and all sorts of shady dealings, however, none of which is audited. It was also a windfall to the defense industry.

The US lost it's base in Saudi Arabia, ...Is that true? All of them? I did not read of it, and think I would have noticed. When did it happen, and why? More details and reference please.

If true, it is potentially a very significant shift. Perhaps the Royal family is beginning to question how much of an asset (to them) the US is? I.e. if US or Israel does strike Iran, having US airbases in the kingdom may be too offensive to their extreme Islamic population and the royal family may fear they will lose control?

After his successes in driving Russians from Afghanistan (with CIA supplied equipment, especially stinger missiles) Bin Laden offered to drive the "godless communist government" from Yemen, but the Saudi Royal family would not let him. Soon after this rejection, Bin offered to drive the very secular Saddam from Kuwait, and was again rejected by the royal family, who instead asked the US into the kingdom, providing air bases, etc. This desecration of the holy land (for him) by presence of foreign forces so near to Mecca, their importation of alcohol, etc was completely unacceptable - the final straw. He openly opposed the royal family, and they striped him of his Saudi citizenship, froze his wealth (at US request) and 9/11, staffed by Saudis was the result. Just one of at least a dozen* of cases where the CIA's man turned against the US in the end.

If the US in the kingdom is no longer the royal wish, the dollar is doomed, soon. The deal that has propped it up is coming apart.
---------------------------------------------------
*Saddam was another, fighting Iran for 8 years, helped by US satellite photos showing Iranian troop concentrations for targetting with the gas attacks. - Same gas the US installed government is now trying him for, but only for its use on his Kurds, not when US was helping him make gas attacks on Iranians. - Nothing wrong with gas attacks, only breaking from CIA control, trying to sell oil for Euros etc.. :bugeye:

I thought the US choose to pull out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2984547.stm

but I guess thats old news.

I thought the US choose to pull out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2984547.stm
Thanks, I must have missed it or forgotten.

I think a lot of people did, as it was quite soon after the invasion of Iraq. I guess they were planning to build permanent bases in Iraq instead.

If anything happens with the oil in the M.E; that results in the US possessing oil, it would be the first good thing out of this war. But now that this will never happen without use of force, we must be clusterf-cked....
The building of permanent bases in Iraq is only asking for more problems in the M.E. With the US building more infuence in the ME, through the use of "hard" or "soft" powers, it still causes the countries in the ME to become more skitish/paranoid/defensive/whatnot.... Once they see that the US is gaining more influence and backing certain countries/organizations, it could possibly lead to the development of semi unified, organized ME, with a common "enemy".

In concerns to making a profit on selling oil that we can not obtain in the ME.... There will be no profit. It costs 1/4 of a million american $$$ to train, supply, pay and sustain one, new recruit for 1 year of service. So tell me how many troops have been trained and deployed in the ME? The solution is not to sell oil at a higher price because that will cause economic collapse... which would suck for the US. As our economy is in this "oh so delicate" state of being... We do not need to add any more weight to the people in this country. It could cause this economic collapse in many ways.... One People will be forced to use more money on the oil industry, and less on commerical products. This will NOT encourage the development of luxury items and other things that people want/need. It also boosters an industry that has no equal in rise in stock vaule, next to net buisness? im not quite sure about that one.... but its clear that the oil industry is huge. And with a unique economy like the US's, many expects in the field of economics state that we need to promote the types of buisness that encourages the devolopment of commericial products and "in-state" work.

Hi Steve, and welcome. (I try to welcome all new posters, but as I agree very much with what I understand is your POV, I extend an especially warm welcome to you.)...It costs 1/4 of a million american $$$ to train, supply, pay and sustain one, new recruit for 1 year of service....
That is interesting - where does that come from (the source)?

I do not think there is any solution to be found in oil. Besides oil is a treasure as chemical feed stock and it is essentially criminal (crime against later generations) to burn it up for heat. I live in Brazil, drive a car on 100% alcohol using technology that has been developed during the last 30+ years in Brazil. Approximately half the cars on the road (not including those bigger, expensive imported ones some rich people drive) run on pure alcohol, produced locally from sugar cane. Approximately, 80% of all cars sold now are able to use any mixture of gasoline or alcohol , but most use 100% alcohol as it is significantly cheaper. (This is true, despite fact that the Brazilian oil company, PetroBras, is still controlled by the government and especially as elections approach, not allowed to raise the price of gasoline to reflect its increasing value in the world market.) Alcohol is produced by hundreds of entirely private concerns, and competition keeps the price low, but still profitable, instead of rising to the cost of gasoline.) You will find more at thread I started "Alcohol - the obvious answer Yes or No?"

Some liquid fuel is essential for some time (more than a decade at least) although if some quick way to recharge electric cars were developed, that might not be true. I think, but few discuss, that there may be potential in a super fly-wheel powered car, but it hard to tell. Perhaps coal liquefaction can be made to work, but that will even increase the release of CO2 above that of gasoline powered cars. That is a great feature of alcohol powered cars - they will actually reduce the release of CO2 as only a small fraction of the CO2 the growing cane removes from the air returns to the air as car exhaust. (Some of the carbon sequestered by the growing cane is in the cane, just as it is sequested by planting trees. Some of the carbon remains in the ground as roots etc.)

SUMMARY: We need to get off the "oil binge" the global economy is on, and it will not be easy, but alcohol (as replacement for gasoline) is the only way to do this with reduction in cost to drive, reduction in CO2 release, (actually net removal from the air) and zero technological risk and development cost (it is old established technology)

Hey Billy T, thanks for the welcome.
I do not have the card for the price of one solider right now, as all my evidence is in the mail being sent to my apartment. But when i find it ill scan it or give you the online sorce to it.

Brazil is now using ethanol (sp?) to fuel all of its cars, and has been for many years. It is produced from a rare and magical thing called.....corn. Its sad that the US is not as interested in alternates to fossil fuels as it should be.

The only way that i see the US changing from oil to something else, is if we push upon the public the use of hybrid cars. This would be the first step in moving onto a new power source. From there it quite possible to encourage the public to using Ethanol (sp?). If the US continues to use fossil fuels; im willing to bet that we will deplete all known sources of it within my lifetime. When i need to pay for a 200$+ barrel of oil, i will sit in the corner of my room and cry.

...Brazil is now using ethanol (sp?) to fuel all of its cars, and has been for many years. It is produced from a rare and magical thing called.....corn.I don't know how to take this - is it a joke? I clearly said Brazilian alcohol (ethanol) comes from sugar cane, not corn.
The only way that i see the US changing from oil to something else, is if we push upon the public the use of hybrid cars. This would be the first step in moving onto a new power source. ...Why would you think that? It is sort of the same as telling me that you moved to your new apartment by way of the moon, where you took a rest stop.

It is quite simple to make the few changes to a gasoline engine required to make it burn alcohol, but a major effort, so complex that there is no guarantee of economic success if total conversion is to be achieved (serious battery disposal pollution problems, great cost as exotic battery material become scares etc) in trying to convert to "hybrid cars" (here I have assumed you are speaking of the small gasoline engine / electric motor / rechargeable battery car with in-wheel electrical generators for regenerative braking. (there are several other types of hybrids, some with no electric motors or generators - for example compress gas energy storage with pump for regenerative braking is very practical, less complex than electric hybrids, but useful only for big urban (not hilly) frequent stops vehicle like a mail truck or school bus etc.)

By far the simplest, most economical, most certain (proven by millions on the road for dozens of years) and most ecologically beneficial way to get off oil, is alcohol.

I have read somewhere that we can use the US's corn that we produce and turn it into a type or form of ethanol that can be used as an alternate power source.... Sorry it was not clear that i was trying to state the US should be using it.

To move from an oil based energy source, we can not just drop the entire market. The US being one of the major buyers in oil suddenly changing to a non oil source of power would destroy the world economy. It would quickly destroy the economy of serveral oil based nations, like those of the middle east and create a ripple effect on the prices of oil throughout the world. This would be very bad. A different plan would be to use the gas/electric hybrid cars for some time and encourage the public to use them. From there we can move onto other sources like ethanol. Which as u stated....

"By far the simplest, most economical, most certain (proven by millions on the road for dozens of years) and most ecologically beneficial way to get off oil, is alcohol"

...To move from an oil based energy source, we can not just drop the entire market. ...No need to worry about that, especially if you think the way to get to alcohol fueled cars is via a stage of gas/electric hybrid ones - Perhaps you really did move to your new apartment by way of the moon?

Have you any rational reason to think that "via gas/electric hybrid" path is not at least 10 times slower and 10 times more expensive that the simple conversion of current internal combustion engines to a slightly different fuel?

In any case, one of the main reasons, I think the US economy is doomed, (unable to switch to an energy source to replace oil, before it economically crashes under the weight of its "suburban infrastructure") is that it was necessary to have started a serious conversion effort back when "forward looking" Detroit was introducing the SUV!

BTW, some still argue that ethanol, produced from Iowa's corn is a net negative energy gain. (Because of all he petroleum based fertilizer used to stimulate rapid growth in compensation for the short growing season etc.) but I think it is about a 10% positive net gain. In contrast, in Brazil where the grass called "sugar cane" even occasionally grows wild, little fertilizer is used (none required, but some does increase the yield and is profitable to apply). Most studies show a net energy gain of at least 300% and one even 800%! This because most of the energy input is solar (in both cases) but in Brazil sunlight is stronger and collected all year, plus some of the input energy is the human labor of the cane cutters. (I also think these studies include the electricity produced and the mechanical energy directly used in crushing, etc., when the crushed cane is burned for steam generation as that alone usually exceeds the petroleum input energy. Also the fact that it does not travel from distant places to the "gas station" i.e. is not from the Mid East, Alaska etc. helps.)

No need to worry about that, especially if you think the way to get to alcohol fueled cars is via a stage of gas/electric hybrid ones - Perhaps you really did move to your new apartment by way of the moon?

Have you any rational reason to think that "via gas/electric hybrid" path is not at least 10 times slower and 10 times more expensive that the simple conversion of current internal combustion engines to a slightly different fuel?

In any case, one of the main reasons, I think the US economy is doomed, (unable to switch to an energy source to replace oil, before it economically crashes under the weight of its "suburban infrastructure") is that it was necessary to have started a serious conversion effort back when "forward looking" Detroit was introducing the SUV!

BTW, some still argue that ethanol, produced from Iowa's corn is a net negative energy gain. (Because of all he petroleum based fertilizer used to stimulate rapid growth in compensation for the short growing season etc.) but I think it is about a 10% positive net gain. In contrast, in Brazil where the grass called "sugar cane" even occasionally grows wild, little fertilizer is used (none required, but some does increase the yield and is profitable to apply). Most studies show a net energy gain of at least 300% and one even 800%! This because most of the energy input is solar (in both cases) but in Brazil sunlight is stronger and collected all year, plus some of the input energy is the human labor of the cane cutters. (I also think these studies include the electricity produced and the mechanical energy directly used in crushing, etc., when the crushed cane is burned for steam generation as that alone usually exceeds the petroleum input energy. Also the fact that it does not travel from distant places to the "gas station" i.e. is not from the Mid East, Alaska etc. helps.)


All resources in the universe, are owned by the entities which can defend it. If you can defend it, you own it, and if you can't, then you don't.

This means you don't own anything in your house unless you can defend it all.

"TimeTraveler: "you don't own anything in your house unless you can defend it all."

By that assertion you are either insincere, or a criminal. My bet: Insincerity, otherwise known as talking out of your ass.

"TimeTraveler: "you don't own anything in your house unless you can defend it all."

By that assertion you are either insincere, or a criminal. My bet: Insincerity, otherwise known as talking out of your ass.

He is right, in a way. Would you leave your house unlocked if you go away for a holiday? And if you did (or didn't), and came back and found it stripped, how would you get back your things? You'd need the law and even then, you'd only get back your things if the people who took them could be found. Even then, it may not be possible to get back everything.

Happened to someone I know. They went for a vacation overseas and came back to find two movers trucks had stripped them of everything in their absence. And no, they never did find them. And insurance does not cover everything, especially sentimental value.

" if you ... came back and found it stripped, how would you get back your things?"

By TimeTraveler's purported sense of reality, one could seize equivalent stuff from neighbors through overwhelming force.

Crime happens. So let's all join in... Not!

All resources in the universe, are owned by the entities which can defend it. If you can defend it, you own it, and if you can't, then you don't. This means you don't own anything in your house unless you can defend it all.I do not understand why you posted this as if a comment on my post. It seems totally unrelated, but perhaps I am missing your point? None-the-less, because it relates to your comments,

I will pass on perhaps the most important thing ever said to me:

As a JHU graduate student I visited a cousin in “fox hall” part of DC. When I arrived, she was already busily polishing her senile mother's set of silver (She had her own, mainly wedding presents, plus that of a dead grandmother's also on the table waiting their turn for this twice a year chore.) I helped and we talked. After about an hour of our joint polishing efforts, she casually said:

"You know, you really don't own things, things own you."

This wisdom made it easy for me to sell everything that would not fit into the airplane's free baggage allowance when I moved to Brazil. Hope you do not mind giving up all travel, going out to eat, etc, so you can stay home to protect your house and its contents. With your POV, they own 100% of you.

PS to SamDCkey:
My Brazilian wife's son was away from home (which is several hours drive from where we live) on a two week vacation and that happened to him also, but worse. With the price of copper being what it is today, all the wiring in the walls was ripped out too.