Is private property really ideal?

I had this random thought rolling around in my head and I just thought it might make a good discussion.

Keep in mind I have no motive other than a conversation and I do not associate with any political agenda. I am preparing to build my own Yurt and rid myself of debt and bills by voluntary simplicity(my small family is already on board). So naturally I'm starting to think more like a nomad.

Is it good that as a country we have divided up all the land into private owned, state owned, association owned? What if people could move freely if they so choose without heavy tax and regulation burdens? What if instead of being told to buy homes we are taught to make more inventive mobile/nomadic homes that make better use of our resources?

I think poverty would be easier to solve if people could move easier to better areas that provide more opportunity. Our national housing crisis wouldn't even exist. people wouldn't have to work 60 to 80 hours a week when times got tough to keep their children warm. Our culture of "more" and materialism would be diminished. Bigotry would be lessened as people could experience more of the different cultures around our country.

Just some thoughts. I'd love to have some more input about this from all of you. Please keep it polite and thoughtful.

What happens to goods produced from the land? Say the land is all public but I've got a few acres of vegetables and a couple of acres of pasture Ive been working for a few years then some swarm of self-righteous tent-dragging hippies come through like locusts and destroy my food.

reply to post by Bilw85


I am in total agreement with what you are stating.

thisguyrighthere

You make a good point. Although I believe freedom of movement and nomadic capabilities are ideal. If we would ever return to such livings ( a bit different with the use of technology ) Everyone should learn anew how to respect the creation of others. For example a wonderful garden or a food patch.

Their are allot of new ideas coming up on how a society could function better in contrast to our current failing capatalistic monetary system, and of course their is a lot of opposition as well. I personally from a more or less spiritual background do believe a new kind of society needs to be formed. On the other hand I truly do understand the critics.

In many ways our current society is built upon our inability to cope with change and expressing ourselves properly and of course the materialistic ways people are now growing up into. So if change ever comes to our society for the better that will only be so because their will be no dam hippies wanting to destroy or trample a few acres of agriculture. That is only the current mind set.

If those people come to your land thisguyrighthere as nomads they will probably try to find the creator of the agriculture and bargain with you for food and resting place in exchange for work or alike.

If not then such circumstances will never come into existence. Maybe in a post apocalyptic setting.

( although they may be smocking weed. ) ( I love hippies. )

I'd just like to point out that there is a difference between real estate and land. You can own real estate but its just a piece of paper and only entitles you to reside on land. At any time someone can claim that land as theirs and if they have a land patent to prove it, your bit of paper is worthless. Owning land also means you own all rights to minerals ect on that land and you own everything above it and below it. It also cannot be taken from you by the government where as real estate can. The problem is that very few people actually own land, they own real estate.

I think everyone should be entitled to their own little piece of land as a basic right, imagine what that would do for poverty.

reply to post by fumanchu


Good distinction I would be wise to head it.

A few small things I would like to note.

If government wants to taker your land it will be able to take it from you regardless of ownership. Normal rules do apply normally, but government are always to create their own justified exception to the rule.

This is a serious question.

When you have a land patent you own the area directly above the land? How many feet?

I agree that everyone has the right to have a place they can call their own. This is not a problem because their is enough land for everyone to occupy. Good hospitable land. To bad current infrastructure and society can not appreciate that fact.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
What happens to goods produced from the land? Say the land is all public but I've got a few acres of vegetables and a couple of acres of pasture Ive been working for a few years then some swarm of self-righteous tent-dragging hippies come through like locusts and destroy my food.

Good point.

I think I read something once about how fences ruin herding cultures. When people stake claim to the prime land then others suffer and lose out no matter that there is plenty of grazing land to share.

Issues like roving bands of hippies would need to be addressed. I know I am probably dreaming big here, but people would need to learn to share and respect others.

So you have no problem living in a house and someone deciding to just walk and a claim a bed?

After years being part of a military family, and living a [sort of] nomadic life - no thank you. I absolutely love having and owning my own private house and property and living in one place - yet being allowed to travel the world if I so please.

Also, not everyone gets a long. I really dont want to end up having people I dont like or trust living right next to me. And I really dont want to be working my arse off to support people who chose not to. Why do I need to share what I work hard to obtain - other than the time volunteering and donations I give to charities and those in need?

I just see this as a bad idea.

Private homes and property is the only way Id ever live.


[edit on February 26th 2010 by greeneyedleo]

Of course it is not ideal. And this is the point, because if it was ideal - it would not work for us.
We are not ideal, see. Some are more selfish, some are less. Some are more greedy,some are less. Some are more violent,some are less. And ctr, and ctr, and ctr....
However fumanchu idea about small piece of land for each and every one is very positive. Not ideal though.... However government and big corporations/money bags will not agree to it. People will be much harder to control and manipulate this way.

These ideas are paralleling the basis for all property rights or usage rights dating back to the era following the Magna Charta in England.

If you research the Statute of Uses you will see that one effect was to 'make room' for the concept of TRUSTS in law. The USUFRUCTORY RIGHTS.

The land patent may be the original geographic outline of the land and as such creates a trust relationship wherein the grantor (god) and the beneficiary (patent holder) have made it known that anyone who wants to trespass onto the patent better show they have the authorization of the grantor. Not going to happen! But in modern days of the Public Trust, trustees want to attack patent holders until they are more informed of the facts it seems. Many say still to this day you can not have true 'standing' without a land patent showing you to be a land owner. Everyone else are slaves, citizens. Hence no true rights are meted out to us little guys.

Also the American indians used the concept of usufruct rights of usage.
Every Fruit of Every Tree was claimed by different families and relied on their continual use of the fruit. If they abandoned their use it returns to the public trust. Also this is the
root of squatters rights as well. Lack of use. Nice thoughts here this morning ont his thread. Sorry if I veered around the topic like a drunken postman. The letter still arrived!
Peace!

Originally posted by GamleGamle
reply to post by fumanchu

 

Good distinction I would be wise to head it.

A few small things I would like to note.

If government wants to taker your land it will be able to take it from you regardless of ownership. Normal rules do apply normally, but government are always to create their own justified exception to the rule.

This is a serious question.

When you have a land patent you own the area directly above the land? How many feet?

As far as I'm aware you own everything under your land, technically from the center of the earth to the boundary of space. Also, as far as the government taking your land, they cannot. A land patent is supreme above any local or federal statutes and is guaranteed forever. If the gov wanted to build an interstate through your land, tough crap, they would have to go around you. It would be illegal for them to seize land secured under a land patent, even if a debt is owed on it. Of course this is the US we're talking about, and I'm no lawyer so get proper legal advice rather than taking my word for it.

MORE

Many modern legal theories state property rights exist because giving people property rights serves a utilitarian purpose. Theorists point to a phenomenon called the "tragedy of the commons" where people end up not properly exploiting resources because they do not have an ownership interest in the resources.

To illustrate the tragedy of the commons, let us assume you own a car. You take care of your car because it is yours. You get the oil changed regularly and try not to drive it over speed bumps really fast. You might even take it to the car wash regularly. The car is going to last a long time and travel a great distance because of your stewardship.

Now let us assume your car is a communal car. Anybody and everybody can drive the car whenever they want. Nobody has an ownership interest in it. Since nobody has an ownership interest in the car, nobody is going go through the expense of performing maintenance on the car. While many communal users might be considerate of others, many will not be considerate. These inconsiderate users are going to drive the car fast over speed bumps, leave trash in the car, and may even drive recklessly. The communal car is probably going to fall apart pretty quick. It will be an improperly utilized resource.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


You see that sort of thing everyday with rented homes that arent owner occupied. Eventually they get rented out to some white trash buffoons who have never owned anything they couldnt smoke or drink and the house subsequently falls to spit and becomes an eyesore on the neighborhood. If not dealt with the entire neighborhood begins to lose owner occupied homes and value and eventually degrades into a ghetto.

reply to post by fumanchu


I am afraid this statement is not legally accurate. The constitution allows the government to use imminent domain to seize your land for the public good. There are also several ways in which the law can allow you to be dispossessed of your land. For example, the government can take your land if you fail to pay taxes. A creditor can put a lien on your land if you fail to pay a debt. Your ex-spouse can take your land as a result of a divorce settlement.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Renting is actually a form of property interest. While a "renter" does not have the same level of interest in a property as an owner, the renter does have an interest in the property. While many renters may let the property they rent go to waste, many do maintain their properties to some extent because they do have an interest in the property.

A good example of the tragedy of the commons would be to examine how urchins and others occupy abandoned houses. Abandoned houses may be the closest thing to communal property that exists. Urchins will completely trash the places.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


Your example can be utilised to a great extent to explain where are all the problems are coming from.

It is easy to say a system is bad, but the system is always as good as its people. It is my opinion that on paper new forms of society not explored before are better, but the collective consideration of humanity is not yet ready for such changes.

We will all be playing in the mud until we cannot.

reply to post by GamleGamle


The current system is not truly a private property system. Lawyers think of property rights as a bundle of stick. "Ownership" of property means having some or all of the possible sticks in the bundle. The sticks, or property rights, include rights like: the right to sell the property, the right to use the property, the right to exclude others from using the property, the right to devise property by will, the right to destroy the property, etc.

In our current system, the law does not allow people to have all the possible sticks in the bundle when it comes to property rights. Even if you "own" your house, you cannot do anything you want with your house. You still have to comply with building codes and zoning ordinances. Under certain circumstances, you may even be required to allow other people on your land without your permission.

These limitations on property rights are often useful. A good question might be not whether we should allow people to have sticks or not to have sticks, but rather which sticks should people be allowed to have. Perhaps the ideal situation is to allow property owners to retain some of the traditional rights of ownership, while transferring other rights of ownership to the commons.