Is land ownership a birth right?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

Now the practicalities of this, and the gradual evolution to a more egalitarian civilization will be filled with difficulty.

Yes. First and foremost, it requires all people to be equal. Not everybody is equal; not unless you bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. This is why the first step to every utopian ideal people have tried to put into practice... normally involves killing off a large portion of the population.

The documentary "Idiocracy" is an infinitely more realistic version of a truly egalitarian society than Star Trek.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: FyreByrd

Ahhh wonderful post and thanks for the perspective.

So in this world of yours I'm assuming a less primal vision for the future exist where our base instincts have adjust to enough years of abundance?

Oh, I will also add I haven't seen you post in a while but I enjoy them.

IM evolving opinion - those base instincts are fear. As such they had a survival worth and are deeply imbedded in our physical and psychological life.

However we live, in contemporary society (and this has been developing for hundreds of years) are conditioned "base instincts" are no longer serving survival of the individual, the society or the planet. Our cultural and psychological evolution has far outpaced our physical evolution. And fear is the driver.

Fear can be greatly lessened by more democratic and egalitarian society.

As an aside - this greed thing is just fear - fear of not enough, fear of somebody taking your Stuff, etc, etc.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: FyreByrd

Now the practicalities of this, and the gradual evolution to a more egalitarian civilization will be filled with difficulty.

Yes. First and foremost, it requires all people to be equal. Not everybody is equal; not unless you bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. This is why the first step to every utopian ideal people have tried to put into practice... normally involves killing off a large portion of the population.

The documentary "Idiocracy" is an infinitely more realistic version of a truly egalitarian society than Star Trek.

I haven't see that film.

And just what about bringing everone 'Down', as you say, the lowest common denominator? How are you or anyone better or more deserving then anyone else?

The inherent flaw in the OPs argument is quite simply -

There's isn't enough land on the Earth to give everyone a piece and there are definitely some people who don't want to own land.

It is also a cornerstone of many successful states, nations, cultures and empires that private land ownership provides production of food for the masses.

Case in the opposite failed policy - Zimbabwe and soon South Africa.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I understand your viewpoint

However, it is not based in natural law. I wont argue for/against it other then to point out that it isnt based on natural law.

a reply to: FyreByrd

As an aside - this greed thing is just fear - fear of not enough, fear of somebody taking your Stuff, etc, etc.

I would even say fear and ego but that probably manifest from fear as well so yes fear

the monkey with the most bananas is king

it does seem silly and primal when viewed from a higher perspective

a reply to: FyreByrd

As an aside - this greed thing is just fear - fear of not enough, fear of somebody taking your Stuff, etc, etc.

I would even say fear and ego but that probably manifest from fear as well so yes fear

the monkey with the most bananas is king

it does seem silly and primal when viewed from a higher perspective

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I see your point but wouldn't it be nice?

a reply to: SpartanStoic

I've heard everyone can fit in Texas is that not true?

originally posted by: SpartanStoic
The inherent flaw in the OPs argument is quite simply -

There's isn't enough land on the Earth to give everyone a piece and there are definitely some people who don't want to own land.

It is also a cornerstone of many successful states, nations, cultures and empires that private land ownership provides production of food for the masses.

Case in the opposite failed policy - Zimbabwe and soon South Africa.

You miss the point entirely - it isn't about everyone having a piece of the planet - it's about no one personally owning the space and resources of any land. The idea being that the land is 'held' in common for all.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: FyreByrd

I understand your viewpoint

However, it is not based in natural law. I wont argue for/against it other then to point out that it isnt based on natural law.

Natural Law? Really? And I'm being rude here, without malice - but I don't buy any Christian Justification for exploitation and property theft.

There may be valid arguments to be made - but the premise of Christian Moral Superiority is a false premise.

Ownership of land is indeed a natural law. All we have done is formalize and protect that natural law.

Every creature owns a section of land, because every creature needs enough room to survive. The more evolved the creature, the greater the chances that it will claim and defend its territory. Bears, snakes, big cats, canines, all possess a home range that they own and defend. The difference between them and us is that in today's society, we are not at risk of someone bigger and stronger walking in and taking over our home. The concept of legal land ownership prohibits that.

As has already been pointed out, the Indians did not claim sole ownership, but still owned the land they lived on as a communal tribe. The tribe defended the land against invaders, and when that defense failed, they lost their land. The same thing happened throughout history with small nation-states consolidating into larger states and finally into nations, with the ruler being the one who was powerful enough to defeat the others. That methodology of using land is exactly what you speak of: survival of the strongest.

The only difference seems to be some sort of government intervention to prevent the overthrow of homes under use. However, what would constitute use? I have about 30 acres I now own... the vast majority of it is virgin forest. Am I using it? I say yes... I take walks in it, I keep it pristine and free from clear cutting, and I occasionally hunt on it. But... is that use? I may go a year without walking all the way to the top of the mountain, but I am still making sure no one harms it. I also use it as a barrier of sorts to keep close neighbors away. That is my peace of mind and solace. but someone from the city can (and some have actually done so) say that I have too much land and it would be better if I sold or developed it into a housing development. Whose determination rules?

There are people around here who hold land for the timber. They may let their land grow wild for 20 years before selling off the hardwoods. They are using that land for their future income, even though they may not actively use it while the crop is growing.

What about improvements? If I work my entire life to build a nice home, and I decide to take a month's vacation somewhere exotic, will I have a home to come back to? Or will I be expected to start fresh on a bare spot of land and sleep in a tent while someone who happened to walk by while I was gone sleeps in my nice home? I wasn't using it during my vacation, although I intended to use it again when I returned.

If I fence in an area and turn cattle into it, I am using that land. But what happens if my cattle get a disease and die off? I am no longer actively using the land, so can someone else just run their animals into it and claim it while I am trying to buy more cattle? What if I am only left with enough cattle to need half of it? Can someone else simply turn their cattle in with mine, because I am not taking full use of it?

No. Your proposal does not hold water, because it is based not on a desire for fairness and equity, but in a desire for have-nots to take from the haves. That is a failed philosophy, be it called communism, tribalism, socialism, what have you. I own my land, I will defend my land, and I will die, if necessary, doing so. Without a home, a man is nothing; without a home large enough to support him, a man is a slave. Should the day ever come in my lifetime where someone decides that they should take my land because of some crazy notion of birthright ownership, believe me I will revoke their birth to keep my land. It has sheltered me and protected me and given me a place of retreat from the world of evil we inhabit all my life. It is mine. I am its. I came from it, and when I die I have left instructions to return my ashes to it. We live in a harmony that society should not disturb... that society will not disturb with impunity.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: FyreByrd
And just what about bringing everone 'Down', as you say, the lowest common denominator? How are you or anyone better or more deserving then anyone else?

How? Because "reality". Because "human nature". Because not everybody is interested in equality or making equal contribution to society.

Some people's life ambition is to smoke dope and punch old ladies in the face to steal their handbags. They are the ones who made the choice to live outside of acceptable society; am I disenfranchising them, or did they disenfranchise themselves?

a reply to: toysforadults

The truth is the ones who can afford it will own land and the ones who can't wont.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: toysforadults

The truth is the ones who can afford it will own land and the ones who can't wont.

And for (agricultural) land to be productive, you want it to be held by the people with the capital (or ability to raise capital) necessary to put it to good use. Being able to afford the land in the first place is a good early indicator.

This is the heart of the African land appropriation problem. Farms need loans. Banks aren't going to loan against future profits if the farmer doesn't know how to farm, and they certainly won't loan against property if the farmer's ownership of it is not guaranteed, because there is no recourse if the loan isn't paid.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Ownership of land is indeed a natural law. All we have done is formalize and protect that natural law.

Here is the 'rational' for your natural law:

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), the medieval Catholic scholar, sought to reconcile the Greek concept of natural law with Christian theology. Aquinas began by positing an eternal law — the Divine Reason by which God governs the universe — and then proceeded to state that man as a creature has the eternal law imprinted on him and by it derives the natural inclination to proper acts and ends.[9] Aquinas states:

. . . the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law.[10]

darashpress.com...

Taken from the Greeks that stated natural law was based on reason and twisted to "the Divine Reason by which God".... Such unabashed arrogance claiming to know how God (if there is one -- and that question is only answerable in the purely subjective) reasons....

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: mysterioustranger

Actually you are wrong.

At some point all land was free. You have to consider the fact that in this interpretation of natural law they concede to the fact that land ownership is based on use and need.

You said it ..."at some point" land WAS free.

Not now.. Always an owner, always taxed to a point.. All land belongs to someone... And if not? It's government land.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I think I explained my rationale for my position quite clearly, without the need for religious references to the mind of God. How is it that you choose to try and ascribe it to a 13th century scholar in the Catholic church? Were you just looking for any reason to post that excerpt?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: toysforadults

Can't think of any reason why a person should not be allowed to settle on any unused land, other than some land that is protected specifically for conservation purposes.
What the heck is "Crown land" anyways?

First Nations folk believed that we all belong to Mother Earth, and the concept of a man owning a piece of land was ridiculous to them.

This is so much a mythical idea and demonstrates how poorly americans have been educated about the very real political world of the american natives. East of the Mississippi tribes had to ask permission from the Federal, if you will, Algonquin government to settle land/tribal conflicts. Which many tribes had......land and tribal conflicts. Who could settle where or move here. One tribe couldn't simply move its lot without question.

Am not a product of the American school system, so you'll have to blame my poor education on something else.
Don't mind taking the blame for it, on my own shoulders.
Am happy to not be "well educated".

Got tired of reading about wars and economies.
Started noticing that there was beauty and harmony to be experienced, and sorta went that way.
Feel blessed and fortunate to have never lived in a war-zone.

Although there were periods of conflict amoung the First-Nations tribes, the vast majority of their history is of peaceful harmony. All across North-America, and not just in the USA.
But that's not what someone who was "well-educated" in a USA school system would believe, is it?

First Peoples of Canada

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
South Africa is using the tribal ethic to claim land in the name of the Republic.
Everybody understand?
Me neither.

I certainly do.

Bad governance.

Otherwise known as greed.
The ANC said they would put the land confiscated under state control.
Huge bribes and cash in on mining interests.
China has been receiving 54% of the world's strategic minerals.
More than Europe, the US, Japan and Korea put together..