Bring together within the ambit of a single theory, all the literature relevant to my needs.

What does it mean to own something? This is already an impossibly complicated question and we haven't even broached the question of culture yet. Ownership, as it turns out, is a highly sophisticated relationship between an agent and an object. An owner and a property.

What is culture? What is appropriation? How can culture be appropriated? Why is this a bad thing? What does it mean to appropriate something? Essentially, it means to steal something. What does it mean to steal? Basically, it means to take something that you don't own.

Why do you do the things that you do? Idk why I do the things that I do. But for the purposes of telling a coherent story, we have to start somewhere and what better place to start than with a problem. What's my problem? My problem is cultural appropriation.

Markets of markets

volume five of The Cambridge History of Rights is a comprehensive and authoritative reference for the history of rights in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Rights continued to evolve as the imperial world order transitioned to a postcolonial world of sovereign states as a primary form of political organization. Through twenty-six essays from experts around the world demonstrating how this period is historically distinctive,

Through the twentieth century, human rights became institutionalized internationally in laws, movements, and organizations that transcended state-based citizenship and governance – which irrevocably changed the politics around them.

The concept of a right, and the idea of human rights, were familiar abstractions on the brink of the twentieth century. But the history of political mobilization since shows that human rights had a transformative capacity in that century that no prior age had demonstrated.

https://t.co/ePvXr50E4p

https://t.co/ZEdwTRk59k

Indeed, historians have recently shown how hagiography is often more useful for grasping the priorities of its authors than those of the saints themselves.20

Catholic social thought sees what Marxism largely misses: that injustice often arises not from ownership alone, but from institutional forms that allow power, benefit, and harm to come apart.

Unlike Marxism, Catholic social thought is not fixated on ownership as the sole locus of injustice. Private property is affirmed, but never treated as morally self-justifying. What matters is how property, authority, and action are ordered toward the common good.

Both Islamists and Marxists share in common an inability to understand the role of interest.

Societally obligating terms such as. . .

Sungai Limbutong do not have a traditional apparel

Schmitt, the Islamists, and the Integralists are all in agreement when they say that all key concepts of modern political theory are secularized theological concepts.

Kumbaya indigenism likes to pretend all the natives were living harmoniously with one another until the colonial powers came but the opposite was true. Indigenous people live in harmony as a result of practising civilized restraint on their natural tendency to headhunt.

In many ways, no-self doctrine serves the ruling elite because even if the hoi polloi frolick frivolously in the egoless stupor, the old families are busy partitioning liabilities between their various companies.

What Hume calls the is-ought distinction, Hans Kelsen calls the Sein-Sollen distinction.