Land ownership
- Thread starter Quiet
- Start date
There used to be a population of Native Americans here on land, but I guess fish are more relevant.
you're right, your mention of NA, which presumably referred only to the ones in the west where land was not scarce and people were mainly nomads while conveniently ignoring the hereditary buffalo hunting grounds on the great plains, private ownership of agricultural land among mahicans and in the southeast etc. (whoah, how dare i say that NA weren't a homogeneous cultural group that you can safely stereotype as peeps connected to the soil by their souls), is much more relevant
It is true that our oceans have been severly ovefished- both in territorial waters and international waters. Lands all over the world have had the resources sucked dry and been subject to terrible land management - from tribal cultures as well as modern cultures and corporations (as outlined in Collapse- Jared Diamond.
I dont think land ownership means that lands will be effectively managed. Land ownership has failed us so far. Effective resource management and care for the land has more to do with the attitude one has towards the land, the community and the future generations. Some land owners may be good stewards while other land owners just rape their land because of negligence, greed for profit, ignorance etc.
I don't know what you specifically mean (forests outside of west Europe maybe?), but I'm willing to bet you can trace causation to limits on private ownership.
Sure, it's conceivable that a dimwit who won't use his land for anything valuable despite market incentives, won't have the capital value of his property in mind when setting production rates or methods (ie anticipating future scarcity/abundance/acute need/obsolescence and adjusting according to time preference as reflected in interest rates [mechanism not currently in function]) and doesn't even know at all what he's doing but still refuses to sell it to a better steward. There still are a heck of a lot of incentives with which management is as effective as or more effective than it would have been without them (ceteris paribus), though
I'm just gonna leave this here and probably not come back, I know y'all find it boring
Thanks for the link. It has definately given me food for thought.
I found the topic interesting but his voice did almost put me to sleep. I listened to it while I washed the dishes.
The notion that resources are ill managed because private ownership is presently too limited is very interesting and I will think much more on it.
I think that capitalism and increased rights for private ownership may help in some situations to manage certain resources- namely situations where better management leads to a more sustaniable business prospects and more profit. However, there is only incentive to manage resources that yield profit, what about managing aspects of the evironment such as biodiversity and endangered species that have limited monetary value?
Also, some resources are shared by everyone such as air and waterways, how does increased indivudal property rights protect these collective resources?
I think it's kinda cute
I hope I'm adequately addressing what you're actually asking here...
If someone voluntarily seeks to save an endangered species they do it either as an interested individual who gets personal satisfaction from it, or as a capitalist expecting potential revenue since others will value what he does, either because they value the species' survival in itself or the animal will in some way benefit in a production process. If none of these are true, no one will try to conserve the species. Should it still be conserved?
The conjecture that those in the business of medicine, cosmetics and production of chemicals that can be used in food etc might have an interest in preserving species without currently clear uses should maybe be mentioned here.
In the sense that everyone uses air, air is abundant (a resource is scarce only if several people wish to use it in mutually incompatible ways) and therefore no one owns it and there is no need to conserve it. In the more local sense, Rothbard in the video talked about how it used to be that, if someone polluted nearby, you could take them to court since this use of your local air was incompatible with how you previously used it (which is pretty much the general anatomy of any violation of property). "Desirable" pollution which came as a side-effect of very valuable production could still be upheld by negotiating with those who were negatively affected, thereby reaching the "optimal" amount of pollution (and steering it towards less valuable land, since polluting there would be less expensive). In the early 19th century however, courts started rejecting such complaints as illegitimate (encroachment on ownership) and gave more or less total leeway for polluters.
I think it's kinda cute
I hope I'm adequately addressing what you're actually asking here...
If someone voluntarily seeks to save an endangered species they do it either as an interested individual who gets personal satisfaction from it, or as a capitalist expecting potential revenue since others will value what he does, either because they value the species' survival in itself or the animal will in some way benefit in a production process. If none of these are true, no one will try to conserve the species. Should it still be conserved?
The conjecture that those in the business of medicine, cosmetics and production of chemicals that can be used in food etc might have an interest in preserving species without currently clear uses should maybe be mentioned here.
Thanks for your thoughful response.
It is a good question you ask about conservation. I think that it should be conserved to maintain ecology and for future generations but I also undertand that many species die out in the process of natural selection. The loss of biodiversity would have dire consequences on the environement. However, I think at some level humans have to respect the environment for what it is, not just its use to us. Respect for its own sake is not profitable though.
I think that this could work if it was governed correctly, albeit it would be messy and expensive to administrate. What if people don't sue though? The pollution itself could be difficult to measure objectively. And how does compensation work when the land is destroyed or becomes unusable? And what if an indivual that owns land with valuable resources on it chooses to mismanage it deliberatly for short term gain, destroying it in the process. Although this would be unwise, it would be well in their rights to do as long as it didnt interfere with anyone else's rights.
All in all I think that this system of private ownership could have some merit in terms of resource management.
I still think that communal land ownership could be just as effective though. With communal land ownership the needs of the whole community would be considered when managing resources, not just the profitablity of resources for certain people.
..........
There are other issues in regards to land ownership I would like to address (they are more of a philosophical nature):
Is it right for individuals to hold lands that they dont use/have no intention to use when others have none?
What if we were to set a limit on how much land can be owned by an individual?
What if everyone could lease land for agreed periods of time?
What would a world with no land inheritance be like?
What if individuals could own land for their private residence (with full property rights), but all resource rich and commercial land was owned by the commons to be managed by adequately qualified councils for use and benefit of the greater community?
The follow-up to the "should?" regarding conservation of things no one wishes to voluntarily conserve would of course be "how?". I think you see what's being implied here, although technically it's no longer in the realm of the current topic.
Legal technicalities is admittedly not at all my department, sorry. The only thing I have to offer is a hypothetical where it would've been considered criminal to engage in such activities for the last 200 years and the possible advances that could have been made in the field of investigating it, with an analogy to the stuff they do on CSI. : P
Well, that's possible, and I'm not sure whether moving into a discussion of its ethicality would be appropriate here, but as I think I've mentioned before, capital tends to go from bad stewards to good one and all that.
Agh, recommending books on the topic of economic calculation and collective ownership seems like it would be fruitless (unless you'd actually be interested in reading that, I'm assuming not though), and most lectures that seem like they'd be decent are by Joseph Salerno... He's a good thinker and all, but if you found Rothbard boring you'd probably fall asleep at the mere sight of Salerno xD The short version is that no private property in capital goods leads to no capital markets, leading to no prices for capital, leading to an inability to calculate which resources are more highly valued/scarce, meaning that you can't direct them to their most valuable uses. I haven't watched it, so I don't know if it'll elucidate anything, but you can watch this if you'd like (or just google it and see if you find something appropriate).
Small-scale communal ownership (eg family) is cool though, but centralization on a large scale doesn't work well for conservation since resources are squandered in sub-optimal uses in such a system.
I think we need to fall entirely to one side or the other, but sadly only the government owns land in the US, even the small plots we build our houses on.
Think about it, if you don't pay your "property taxes" they come and take it away, if you want to build, construct, dig, do or alter it in any way, you need a "permit" for the government to 'permit' you to alter your own property, and even if you pay your taxes, and never break any rules, it doesn't guarantee your hold on your land, because if they feel so inclined, they may up and confiscate it, while paying you whatever they personally judge it to be worth, not what it's worth to you according to "eminent domain". Truly allodial property doesn't exist in the United States.
Living in the ocean... that is a pretty interesting alternative.
Think about it, if you don't pay your "property taxes" they come and take it away, if you want to build, construct, dig, do or alter it in any way, you need a "permit" for the government to 'permit' you to alter your own property, and even if you pay your taxes, and never break any rules, it doesn't guarantee your hold on your land, because if they feel so inclined, they may up and confiscate it, while paying you whatever they personally judge it to be worth, not what it's worth to you according to "eminent domain". Truly allodial property doesn't exist in the United States.
Living in the ocean... that is a pretty interesting alternative.
As a Jew, I believe ownership of land is a fiction. Everything belongs to the Creator. However, he wishes for us to enjoy the many good things He has made. And while the earth is His garden, he has made us the gardeners, the stewards, with the responsibity to work the land and care for it as well.
Perhaps one of the most strikingly politically INCORRECT things in the Bible is that Jews were NOT the first people to settle Canaan. We are NOT indigenous there. Torah states that the reason G-d sent us down into Egypt was because "the cup of iniquity" of the peoples of Canaan was "not yet full." IOW, G-d gave them every chance to get their act together first, but then he took the land AWAY from them, and gave it to Israel. That's pretty nasty stuff. But the whole thing rests upon the notion that the land is not really owned by ANY people, but by its Creator, who can do with it as He sees fit. I don't know about you, but that kind of makes me swallow slowly.
Perhaps one of the most strikingly politically INCORRECT things in the Bible is that Jews were NOT the first people to settle Canaan. We are NOT indigenous there. Torah states that the reason G-d sent us down into Egypt was because "the cup of iniquity" of the peoples of Canaan was "not yet full." IOW, G-d gave them every chance to get their act together first, but then he took the land AWAY from them, and gave it to Israel. That's pretty nasty stuff. But the whole thing rests upon the notion that the land is not really owned by ANY people, but by its Creator, who can do with it as He sees fit. I don't know about you, but that kind of makes me swallow slowly.
I want you to listen to this song: Right in two - Tool
Listen to the lyrics.
Also listen to: Imagine - John Lennon
Doubtful. The children who grow up on that land should (ideally) know how to use it best. No learning curve.
To outlaw land hoarding would be better.
I saru inc, hereby and henceforth do so swear on a stack of bibles that I confess Asarya makes weirder topics than I do.
Whats next chica? Why practice religion because we're all gods?
For every human baby born a puppy catches on fire?
Whats next chica? Why practice religion because we're all gods?
For every human baby born a puppy catches on fire?