This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Friday, December 25, 2009

Nothing Today

I'm not writing a post today, but I guess this counts. Some people complain when I skip a day.

I've been playing "Arcuz", an online flash game. It's a Diablo-like RPG. It's a bit hard at times, but still interesting.

I'm way behind on reader mail. I also am starting to run out of my queued drafts. I might switch to less than 7 posts per week.


Anonymous said...

remember, quality trumps quantity.

Anonymous said...

For those of your readers in the UK, do you think our country has been chosen to be destroyed first?


Note that people in the UK are getting arrested over silly things (such as handing in a lost mobile phone directly to a police station - man arrested for stealing by finding), their DNA is then taken for the national DNA database and then they are released without charge.

Anonymous said...

Write abut Ownership of Property:

We start with the saying "an act only IS in its execution". With this sentence we establish that the truth of being entitled as owner means to be able to execute ownership. If a person is entitled as owner but he cannot execute his ownership implies that there is an error.

Let us look at the concept of "minority ownership" in Economics. According to this theory, on which the concept of shareholding is based, -and therefore the whole idea of Stock Exchange is based- ownership can be exercise by vote. Thus the person or persons who "own" 49% (or less) of the votes are minority owners. In contrast the person or persons who "own" 51% (or more) of the votes are majority owners. Both categories hold the title of ownership. Yet only the majority owner can exercise ownership. The minority owner has the title but not the capacity to exercise ownership.

From an existential point of view, the minority owner is not owner. Only the majority owner is owner. The minority owner only holds the concept of ownership in the form of a piece of paper that says so.

In Economics this is not an issue because this way of enquiry is not regarded as important. What matters is the willingness of individual to subscribe the contract. The contract itself is only valid in as much as it is subscribed in good will by the parties. For Economics that is the "truth" of it. The problem is that under this approach (with which usury is also justified), the existential reality of ownership is forgotten. What matters is the paper that says you are owner, not whether you can exercise ownership or not.

This is of course the door to fraud. As it is well known in the Stock Exchange majority ownership is only a "technique" of control. The issue of control is simply masked by this conceptual idea of ownership. Let us take an example:

Mr Maxwell buys 50% plus one share of company A. For simplification we will say that he owns ½ of company A. This entitles him to control (existentially own) company A. Now he uses capital of company A to buy 50% plus one share of company B. This will also entitle Mr Maxwell to control company B. Yet, he only owns ¼ of the shares of company B. Now he uses capital of company B to buy another 50% plus one share of company C. Mr Maxwell has control of the company C although he only owns 1/8 of the shares. The process can continue n times, at the end Mr Maxwell ends up with company X in which he only owns ½ of ½ of ½ ...(n times). In this company Mr Maxwell is a "tiny owner", yet he has control of the company.

This fraudulent use of the concept of majority ownership is everywhere in our Stock Exchange. It is based on a "concept" of ownership that denies existential ownership. The result is the exploitation of all the minority owners who have been persuaded to sign the false contract of ownership. In this contract they are not only deprived of their ownership right, but they are also deprived of the rights as lenders, since in fact all they are is lenders.

In Islam, to be entitled to be owner means you can execute your ownership. In a co-ownership all the co-owners are owners. They have identical status as owners independent of the amount of shares. Only the results of the company are shared according to the proportional ownership. In this sense, Islamic Law preserves the existential ownership, because it cannot be otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Keep working ,great job!

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at