Is it possible that the ideas we have today about ownership and property rights have been so universal in the human mind that it is truly as if they had sprung from the mind of God By no means. The idea of owning and property emerged in the mists of unrecorded history. The ancient Jews, for one, had a very different outlook on property and ownership, viewing it as something much more temporary and tentative than we do. 　　The ideas we have in America about the private ownership of productive property as a natural and universal right of mankind, perhaps of divine origin, are by no means universal and must be viewed as an invention of man rather than a decree (order) of God. Of course, we are completely trained to accept the idea of ownership of the earth and its products, raw and transformed. It seems not at all strange; in fact, it is quite difficult to imagine a society without such arrangements. If someone, some individual, didn’’t own that plot of land, that house, that factory, that machine, that tower of wheat, how would we function What would the rules be Whom would we buy from and how would we sell 　　It is important to acknowledge a significant difference between achieving ownership simply by taking or claiming property and owning what we tend to call the "fruit of labor". If I, alone or together with my family, work on the land and raise crops, or if I make something useful out of natural material, it seems reasonable and fair to claim that the crops or the objects belong to me or my family, are my property, at least in the sense that I have first claim on them. Hardly anyone would dispute that. In fact, some of the early radical workingmen’’s movements made (an ownership) claim on those very grounds. As industrial organization became more complex, however, such issues became vastly more intricate, It must be clear that in modern society the social heritage of knowledge and technology and the social organization of manufacture and exchange account for far more of the productivity of industry and the value of what is produced than can be accounted for by the labor of any number of individuals. Hardly any person can now point and say, "That--that right there--is the fruit of my labor. "We can say, as a society, as a nation--as a world, really--that what is produced is the fruit of our labor, the product of the whole society as a collectivity. 　　We have to recognize that the right of private individual ownership of property is man-made and constantly dependent on the extent to which those without property believe that the owner can make his claim stick. One deserves to claim on some product only when

A:his labor accounts for the product and its value. B:he has the priority to lay claim on the product. C:his labor is widely recognized and respected. D:he has the grounds for making claims first.

Is it possible that the ideas we have today about ownership and property rights have been so universal in the human mind that it is truly as if they had sprung from the mind of God By no means. The idea of owning and property emerged in the mists of unrecorded history. The ancient Jews, for one, had a very different outlook on property and ownership, viewing it as something much more temporary and tentative than we do. 　　The ideas we have in America about the private ownership of productive property as a natural and universal right of mankind, perhaps of divine origin, are by no means universal and must be viewed as an invention of man rather than a decree (order) of God. Of course, we are completely trained to accept the idea of ownership of the earth and its products, raw and transformed. It seems not at all strange; in fact, it is quite difficult to imagine a society without such arrangements. If someone, some individual, didn’’t own that plot of land, that house, that factory, that machine, that tower of wheat, how would we function What would the rules be Whom would we buy from and how would we sell 　　It is important to acknowledge a significant difference between achieving ownership simply by taking or claiming property and owning what we tend to call the "fruit of labor". If I, alone or together with my family, work on the land and raise crops, or if I make something useful out of natural material, it seems reasonable and fair to claim that the crops or the objects belong to me or my family, are my property, at least in the sense that I have first claim on them. Hardly anyone would dispute that. In fact, some of the early radical workingmen’’s movements made (an ownership) claim on those very grounds. As industrial organization became more complex, however, such issues became vastly more intricate, It must be clear that in modern society the social heritage of knowledge and technology and the social organization of manufacture and exchange account for far more of the productivity of industry and the value of what is produced than can be accounted for by the labor of any number of individuals. Hardly any person can now point and say, "That--that right there--is the fruit of my labor. "We can say, as a society, as a nation--as a world, really--that what is produced is the fruit of our labor, the product of the whole society as a collectivity. 　　We have to recognize that the right of private individual ownership of property is man-made and constantly dependent on the extent to which those without property believe that the owner can make his claim stick. One deserves to claim on some product only when

A:his labor accounts for the product and its value. B:he has the priority to lay claim on the product. C:his labor is widely recognized and respected. D:he has the grounds for making claims first.

Is it possible that the ideas we have today about ownership and property rights have been so universal in the human mind that it is truly as if they had sprung from the mind of God By no means. The idea of owning and property emerged in the mists of unrecorded history. The ancient Jews, for one, had a very different outlook on property and ownership, viewing it as something much more temporary and tentative than we do. 　　The ideas we have in America about the private ownership of productive property as a natural and universal right of mankind, perhaps of divine origin, are by no means universal and must be viewed as an invention of man rather than a decree (order) of God. Of course, we are completely trained to accept the idea of ownership of the earth and its products, raw and transformed. It seems not at all strange; in fact, it is quite difficult to imagine a society without such arrangements. If someone, some individual, didn’’t own that plot of land, that house, that factory, that machine, that tower of wheat, how would we function What would the rules be Whom would we buy from and how would we sell 　　It is important to acknowledge a significant difference between achieving ownership simply by taking or claiming property and owning what we tend to call the "fruit of labor". If I, alone or together with my family, work on the land and raise crops, or if I make something useful out of natural material, it seems reasonable and fair to claim that the crops or the objects belong to me or my family, are my property, at least in the sense that I have first claim on them. Hardly anyone would dispute that. In fact, some of the early radical workingmen’’s movements made (an ownership) claim on those very grounds. As industrial organization became more complex, however, such issues became vastly more intricate, It must be clear that in modern society the social heritage of knowledge and technology and the social organization of manufacture and exchange account for far more of the productivity of industry and the value of what is produced than can be accounted for by the labor of any number of individuals. Hardly any person can now point and say, "That--that right there--is the fruit of my labor. "We can say, as a society, as a nation--as a world, really--that what is produced is the fruit of our labor, the product of the whole society as a collectivity. 　　We have to recognize that the right of private individual ownership of property is man-made and constantly dependent on the extent to which those without property believe that the owner can make his claim stick. One deserves to claim on some product only when

A:his labor accounts for the product and its value. B:he has the priority to lay claim on the product. C:his labor is widely recognized and respected. D:he has the grounds for making claims first.

Is it possible that the ideas we have today about ownership and property rights have been so universal in the human mind that it is truly as if they had sprung from the mind of God By no means. The idea of owning and property emerged in the mists of unrecorded history. The ancient Jews, for one, had a very different outlook on property and ownership, viewing it as something much more temporary and tentative than we do. 　　The ideas we have in America about the private ownership of productive property as a natural and universal right of mankind, perhaps of divine origin, are by no means universal and must be viewed as an invention of man rather than a decree (order) of God. Of course, we are completely trained to accept the idea of ownership of the earth and its products, raw and transformed. It seems not at all strange; in fact, it is quite difficult to imagine a society without such arrangements. If someone, some individual, didn’’t own that plot of land, that house, that factory, that machine, that tower of wheat, how would we function What would the rules be Whom would we buy from and how would we sell 　　It is important to acknowledge a significant difference between achieving ownership simply by taking or claiming property and owning what we tend to call the "fruit of labor". If I, alone or together with my family, work on the land and raise crops, or if I make something useful out of natural material, it seems reasonable and fair to claim that the crops or the objects belong to me or my family, are my property, at least in the sense that I have first claim on them. Hardly anyone would dispute that. In fact, some of the early radical workingmen’’s movements made (an ownership) claim on those very grounds. As industrial organization became more complex, however, such issues became vastly more intricate, It must be clear that in modern society the social heritage of knowledge and technology and the social organization of manufacture and exchange account for far more of the productivity of industry and the value of what is produced than can be accounted for by the labor of any number of individuals. Hardly any person can now point and say, "That--that right there--is the fruit of my labor. "We can say, as a society, as a nation--as a world, really--that what is produced is the fruit of our labor, the product of the whole society as a collectivity. 　　We have to recognize that the right of private individual ownership of property is man-made and constantly dependent on the extent to which those without property believe that the owner can make his claim stick. One deserves to claim on some product only when

A:his labor accounts for the product and its value. B:he has the priority to lay claim on the product. C:his labor is widely recognized and respected. D:he has the grounds for making claims first.

Insurance companies provide a service to the community by protecting it against expected and unexpected disasters. Before an insurance company will agree to (1) anything, it collects accurate figures about the (2) . It knows, for example, that the risk of a man being killed in a plane accident is less than the risk he (3) in crossing a busy road. This (4) it to quote low figures for travel insurance. Sometimes the risk may be high, as in motorracing or mountaineering. Then the company (5) a much higher price. (6) too many climbers have accidents, the price rises still further. If the majority of climbers fall off mountains, the company will (7) to insure them.
An ordinary householder may wish to protect his home against fire or his (8) against burglary. A shop keeper may wish to insure against (9) . In (10) cases, the company will check its statistics and quote a premium. If it is (11) , it may refuse to quote. If it insures a shop and then receives a suspicious (12) , it will (13) the claim as a means of protecting itself against false claims. It is not unknown for a businessman in debt to burn down his own premises so that he can claim much money from his insurance company. He can be sure that the fire will be investigated most carefully. Insurance companies also (14) insurance against shipwreck or disaster in the air. Planes and ships are very expensive, so a large (15) is charged, but a (16) is given to companies with an accident-free record.
Every week insurance companies receive premium (17) from customers. These payments can form a very large total (18) millions of dollars. The company does not leave the money in the bank. It (19) in property, shares, farms and even antique paintings and stamps. Its aim is to obtain the best possible return on its investment. This is not so greedy as it may seem, since this is one way by which it can deep its premiums down and continue to make a profit (20) being of service to the community.

A:source B:claim C:statue D:origin