Ownership Of Land - A Deeply Flawed Concept?

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Human No More

People can own land, in that they have control of it - other people can't come onto it without permission, they can build things there if they have planning permission (if that is required), they can give it away, sell it, leave it empty, or anything else, but technically they don't own it, it's more borrowed.

Well - borrowed is a better term. What I oppose is for once that people claim to own land - even if it is only borrowed. The attitude is different, like do I own a dog or is my dog living with me. This also means that selling or giving it away is not the right way to do it - if someone lives on a land and lives off that land - so be it, but to try to control more land than one needs and then sell it or rent it to others - that is not the right one has. If anything, than it is the right of weapons - as in fact what is sold then is not the land itself, but the "protection" from beeing driven off by the land by the person who "owns" it. Its like with the Mafia. Someone goes out and takes land into "posession" by means of weaponry and then forbids others to enter unless they work for him (or pay tribute). This sounds like Feudalism or Warlord rulership? It is the system we live in now - try not paying rent and you will at one point look into a gunbarrel...

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

The fact is that we wouldn't fight for the sweat put in but the ownership of what I made or took. It's called egoism. The "I worked hard" argument is just an excuse and an incentive to promote this attitude

Well it is ok to protect what one has made, that is sure. Protect your shelter, protect your family or your tools. But to take things and claim ownership is a lot harder to justify - and to take land into posession as mentioned above is not really possible - it can only be borrowed. But I agree that the worked-hard-argument is just an excuse...

If actual Communism wasn't put in practice it's exactly because some bastard would probably ruin the utopia; most probably by hijacking the movement and making the people work for them in a false "all equals" atmosphere. The same reason applies for all the Anarchist communes.
Human spirit still has to change.

Well - I think one thing that has to happen here is that people are aware of that. They had not been in the Revolution in Russia, they were all hyped up about it happening. One thing that makes this not work is to have masses of people. Like it or not, but masses of people behave very much different than individuals or small groups. They will follow a lead or act like a liquid or behave irrational. The key to a success I thking is a small group size. Within a village of 200 people, a revolution can take place, they can, like in Cuba or in India, organize to share what they have and set up egalitarian structures. This actually works, though they would not call themself an anarchist commune at all they still follow some of the basic principles there. In a small group, it would be a lot harder for some bastard to control all others - as he simply would be kicked out. The danger comes, when the group is large enough to support/feed soldiers/police/guards that have the monopoly on using force. A small community however has a good potential to avert this, unlike if a mass society with a rigid system of police, military and ownership rights is established.

Though nice and beautiful idea, all utopias degenerate

Well - Utopias yes, Sane societies not (Peaceful Societies). And if you think of it, the societies/cultures that lasted the longest, like the indigenous cultures that survived to the present or the cultures that existed for hundreds of thousands of years in the past seem to largely have not much of a stratification or ownership problem. For the old ones it can only be inferred by archaeology (like determining food distribution in pupolations), for the cultures that survived into the post 1500 era, those who have smallscale structures often (not always!) show quite a different way of living than the dominant culture now.

But of course I agree that quite a shift in consciousness or awareness in the people has to happen before any of this could be set up. If you take away the government and police right now, probably the system would just revive itself in a different form. The people have to share a different vision than to regard humans as flawed, agressive and greedy by default. And there has to be a realization that mass society is not really working - or rather is the reason for the kind of setup we have now. In respect of land ownership this means, that small communities may have the "right" to borrow the land they live on from Nature, but no individual owns the land - nor some communal government - no one that asks anyone money or labour in return for using the land. It would be shared among that community.

The main reason for this to happen is growth: everything is predictable to a point, but once the system is not small enough to keep working it collapses;

Well, that basically is what I mean - growth (or as I said also mere size) is the main problem. And my case is, that growth, especially the kind of infinite growth this society is built on is unsustainable and the source of many of the problems this culture faces. But as growth (economic and in population) is at the root of this culture, it is not really possible to shape a different future with small reforms of that very system - it has to change at the root, and that is admittedly a hard thing to do. But as I said, I guess I partly agree with Quinn that such a change cannot come from top down, neither can it come by a forceful revolution. It can come only by people walking away from it. By people getting together in small groups, they can become mostly independent of the larger structure without violence, revolution, overthrowing anything. I dont know if that strategy leads anywhere - it would require eventually a large portion of people to do this and I dont know what the reaction of "the machine" would be to that. Usually it would fight it. Like smallscale farms or companies are simply put out of business by the ability of larger corporations to "dump prices" for a time. But I still think it is a much better way than to do nothing or than to try a new Soviet Union style regime change.


And now to something completely different

Originally Posted by Aihwa

They built it, its their company. If somebody wants to live like that, they can try building their own. Chances are however, its not going to work. This is because it takes dedication, knowledge, and an incredible self driven attitude to gain a respected position in the global economy. Most people either have no idea what to do, or just don't want to go through all that trouble. Those who do, and do it successfully (there are millions who have failed at it throughout the years) become rich from their accomplishments.

See - I think we are going nowhere here. You repeat your arguments. I can also repeat mine now. To "build a company" may take a lot of dedication and knowledge, but so does becoming a medical doctor or a professor. The fact is, that in this kind of economy, certain abilities as well as prior wealth are ranked a lot higher than other, much more productive skills when it comes to "making money". Someone who has money and some good luck or abstract knowledge of stock markets can make millions in days, while someone creating important knowledge or helping people will never get rich. To set such a huge difference in the value of different kinds of work is utterly insane and can only be kept up by a system of power that allows the one who already have to maintain that system by using their power, eventually also in very physical means by violence, to kepp it all going. To put it bluntly - I dont see that a person who builds a big company has any more right to getting a significantly higher revenue from it than the person building or maintaining the machines for that company. They have different sets of skills, both have learned them over years and invested a lot of time learning them and other would have no clue as to how to go about when faced with the respective problems - why would an economic skill be more worth than a mechanical? (This is of course just an example and one that is treated in existing cooperative companies in which the boss gets only marginally more pay than the mechanic who gets just a bit more than the janitor)

Greetings
Aurora