Our Land of Plenty

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 10 Dec 2004 01:24

Should land be a commodity to be bought and sold like any other?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 10 Dec 2004 02:45

No!

How can anybody originally claim the land as their own? Land should belong to everybody equally or nobody.

Please note that I am in no way saying that people should be stopped from having their own privacy - but the land shouldn't belong to them - like renting except without having to pay money for it - or maybe they should pay taxes to the government so that services can be improved.

I can't see things ever changing though.

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 10 Dec 2004 04:41

Jeremy wrote:No!

How can anybody originally claim the land as their own? Land should belong to everybody equally or nobody.

I could try and construct a whole proof or syllogism here based on Hobbes/Locke or Rand or Rothbard, but I can't be fucked and I'd rather just point out something easy and obvious.

If no-one can claim land as their own, and therefore 'ownership is theft' (as is in someone’s sig at the mo') then you have to be willing to give your land to me when you're not using it. The same principle and logic would probably apply to your shirt, computer, bed, home or whatever to others and they can take it if you aren't using it. This would be both quite annoying for you and chaotic for society. That's not a terribly well developed philosophical proof, but the idea of people having literally as much right to the land you live on as you do stops most people from espousing complex anarcho-syndicalist ideas because then you start to get an understanding of the depth of the commitment.

I certainly don't want to make that commitment, and I also think that land ownership is a useful tool for motivation and allocation of scarce resources. Other options open themselves up too much to the tragedy of the commons too - for instance in the 18th century there was a public common area for livestock. Anyone could put their cattle their to feed, but what if one guy decides to put just one more cow on their because it doesn't cost him anything by doing so. But now that there's an extra cow another person's cow will be without slightly less grass. Everyone will want to use it up before others can (ie, look at the ocean at the moment), and that's the essence of the problem of community owned property. There's no limiting factor. At least if one person owns his or her land they have an interest in seeing it used responsibly.

I think private ownership of land benefits everyone in a closed economic system because it gives us framed non-violent methods of conflict resolution and allows us to negotiate with one another to minimize third party effects. The externalities of land use are (at least should be) formally contained (pollution levels and whatever)

Please note that I am in no way saying that people should be stopped from having their own privacy - but the land shouldn't belong to them - like renting except without having to pay money for it - or maybe they should pay taxes to the government so that services can be improved.

Well at the moment people own land so they can have (out of many things) privacy, and the land is only partly ours, I mean we 'own' it for the limited amount of time we are here and then our kids 'own' it, all the while we do pay taxes on that land so that the services to that land are improved and maintained. It's just paying rates and it's one of the responsibilities to society I guess we pay for ownership of land.

I'm pretty happy with the ownership we have (in NZ at least). There are rates, there's some legislation in place to negotiate with private land owners when the government really needs to use their land for national projects (power and water etc), although how we got ownership in the first place is dodgy and I'd be happier if corporations couldn't own things in the same way as people.

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 10 Dec 2004 13:09

I'm going to hijack my own topic here... Why shoud corperations not be able to own things in thesame way as people? Corporations are nothing but people assembled with the aim of making a profit. Religions are groups of people assembled with the aim of worshipping a profit, should they not be able to own things in the same way as a person?

In what way would you limit their ability to own?

Why is their such corporate phobia in todays society?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 10 Dec 2004 14:15

Corporations are people without a community, lacking a soul, having no consciousness and no concience.

I would like to see all shareholders face trial for crimes committed by corporations as if they had committed the crimes themselves. Thus creating two things driving a corporation. Maximize profit and minimize prison time for shareholders.

The death penalty should also be able to apply to a corporation if it can apply to a person. Immediately all people involved in the managment (ie the brain) are gone for life in prison, All investors are supporting actors in the crimes and face charges for that role. The assets of the corporation are dissolved and given to the community that was wronged.

Of course corporations don't want the responsibility of being human, only the benefits.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 10 Dec 2004 16:53

Ideally yes, realistically no.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 10 Dec 2004 17:30

sPinko-Mania wrote:
Jeremy wrote:No!

How can anybody originally claim the land as their own? Land should belong to everybody equally or nobody.
I could try and construct a whole proof or syllogism here based on Hobbes/Locke or Rand or Rothbard, but I can't be fucked and I'd rather just point out something easy and obvious.

If no-one can claim land as their own, and therefore 'ownership is theft' (as is in someone’s sig at the mo') then you have to be willing to give your land to me when you're not using it. The same principle and logic would probably apply to your shirt, computer, bed, home or whatever to others and they can take it if you aren't using it. This would be both quite annoying for you and chaotic for society. That's not a terribly well developed philosophical proof, but the idea of people having literally as much right to the land you live on as you do stops most people from espousing complex anarcho-syndicalist ideas because then you start to get an understanding of the depth of the commitment.

Sorry but that's ridiculous. Land is a natural resource - Computers, shirts, beds and houses are not!! Natural resources should belong to everybody. Once you do something with the natural resource - it's fair enough that you can claim that you own it. Obviously the usage of land should be regulated - but it is easy to see how this could happen without any of this "ownership is theft" stuff - if you study some world history you'll see that such things have occured in many places over time. Mexico is a great example where after the Mexican Revolution everybody had the right to land under the constitution. This of course ended in 1994 - as did many of the social reforms from the revolution and since then the average life expectancy has dropped 15 years or so and the amount of people below the poverty line has risen 200%

I certainly don't want to make that commitment, and I also think that land ownership is a useful tool for motivation and allocation of scarce resources. Other options open themselves up too much to the tragedy of the commons too - for instance in the 18th century there was a public common area for livestock. Anyone could put their cattle their to feed, but what if one guy decides to put just one more cow on their because it doesn't cost him anything by doing so. But now that there's an extra cow another person's cow will be without slightly less grass. Everyone will want to use it up before others can (ie, look at the ocean at the moment), and that's the essence of the problem of community owned property. There's no limiting factor. At least if one person owns his or her land they have an interest in seeing it used responsibly.

Again you are assuming that just because there is no ownership of land there would be no regulation - that is ridiculous. If I rent my land off the government - it should be my land to do with pretty much as I please. If I don't want other peoples cows on the land I'm renting - that's fine. But ultimately the land would belong to the government and thus everybody.

I think private ownership of land benefits everyone in a closed economic system because it gives us framed non-violent methods of conflict resolution and allows us to negotiate with one another to minimize third party effects. The externalities of land use are (at least should be) formally contained (pollution levels and whatever)

I'm sorry but I can't understand how private ownership of land gives framed non violent methods of conflict resolution etc. and government owned land does not. In Australia many farmers work on crown land. Many people live on crown land - especially Aboriginal people - because they've never had the money to buy the land they have lived on for 30,000 years. - I don't think that they are any more or less violent etc than people that own their land. I'm sorry I can't see any connection at all.

As for pollution - why would this change under regulated government owned land? If I am growing my wheat next to somebody who grows cabbages and they pollute their land so that the inevetable run off kills my wheat - clearly they are both damaging my property (the wheat) and lively hood - as well as having a negative effect on society in general.

Please note that I am in no way saying that people should be stopped from having their own privacy - but the land shouldn't belong to them - like renting except without having to pay money for it - or maybe they should pay taxes to the government so that services can be improved.
Well at the moment people own land so they can have (out of many things) privacy, and the land is only partly ours, I mean we 'own' it for the limited amount of time we are here and then our kids 'own' it, all the while we do pay taxes on that land so that the services to that land are improved and maintained. It's just paying rates and it's one of the responsibilities to society I guess we pay for ownership of land.

I'm pretty happy with the ownership we have (in NZ at least). There are rates, there's some legislation in place to negotiate with private land owners when the government really needs to use their land for national projects (power and water etc), although how we got ownership in the first place is dodgy and I'd be happier if corporations couldn't own things in the same way as people.

I think basically you completely understood what I was argueing. Imagine the exact same system as we have now - except you can't sell the land you work/live on to somebody else because you don't own it. If you no longer want that land - you can move somewhere else - and pay proportionally the same rates or taxes etc as you were paying in the other place - while you're paying for it - it's still your land. There would obviously be laws and courts etc to stop people from either abusing or being abused by the system - just like with other things. So if I lived in the same house that my great grandfather built and my family had lived there for 200 years - I would be perfectly entitled to continue to live there for as long as I - or my family wanted - but if I wanted to move somewhere else - I couldn't sell the land. I could probably sell the house - it's obviously a different thing. If I'd done particular things to the land to give it a higher value to society - I could pay less taxes or rates while I'm living on the land - once I leave it's not my land - I would get my new block of land or whatever somewhere else.

What this is about is if you believe that natural resources especially air, water and land should be able to be owned or not - it's not about the system underwhich the lack of ownership would be regulated - I am sure you can come up with lots of different ways society could be organised with out owning land - some would work well and others wouldn't.

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 10 Dec 2004 19:45

Jeremy wrote:Obviously the usage of land should be regulated - but it is easy to see how this could happen without any of this "ownership is theft" stuff - if you study some world history you'll see that such things have occured in many places over time. Mexico is a great example where after the Mexican Revolution everybody had the right to land under the constitution. This of course ended in 1994 - as did many of the social reforms from the revolution and since then the average life expectancy has dropped 15 years or so and the amount of people below the poverty line has risen 200%

I have studied some world history through anthropology and I know that our Western notion of ownership and private property is relatively unique, although I think it is one of the reasons why the West found prominance (good or bad).

Again you are assuming that just because there is no ownership of land there would be no regulation - that is ridiculous. If I rent my land off the government - it should be my land to do with pretty much as I please. If I don't want other peoples cows on the land I'm renting - that's fine. But ultimately the land would belong to the government and thus everybody.

Man, I would never trust the government with all the land, I just don't have so much faith in putting so much power into the hands of so few people. What I invisaged you were talking about is direct communal ownership, which I think is a more realistic proposal in the small scale. Communal ownership via the government I think is one step abstracted, and gets closer to just 'ownership' territory. I mean you'd still 'own' the land in most practical ways we do today.

As for pollution - why would this change under regulated government owned land? If I am growing my wheat next to somebody who grows cabbages and they pollute their land so that the inevetable run off kills my wheat - clearly they are both damaging my property (the wheat) and lively hood - as well as having a negative effect on society in general.

Under this type of ownership I agree their could be identical legal frameworks for dealing with externalities.

I think basically you completely understood what I was argueing. Imagine the exact same system as we have now - except you can't sell the land you work/live on to somebody else because you don't own it. If you no longer want that land - you can move somewhere else - and pay proportionally the same rates or taxes etc as you were paying in the other place - while you're paying for it - it's still your land.

Cool, yeah that's not as radical as I was expecting, I think we could probably still work with that, but it wouldn't be as efficient as what we have now. I think we'd run into problems with deciding on who gets what land when someone leaves it (either through death or just moving). Does the first of kin get any special rights? Wills? All the good spots with nice views would never get passed around, sort of like 'old money' in our current system. As population increases it would get stranger also, with apartment buildings, how would you deal with apartment complexes? Just rent the room not the land?