Subject:
|
Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:08:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1210 times
|
| |
|
|
Darn, wish I'd seen this note before posting a second ago.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> Then again, in Libertopia, one expects that when one *buys* land, one buys
> it *from* someone. Hence, if you were dumb enough to sell the space you
> physically occupy to someone else, leaving you with nothing, tough beans to
> you. At least, such would be a capitalist view, I would think.
That's how I see it too. But that is wicked, not good and just.
> > It is my assertion that if people have a right to exist,
> > they must have a right to exist _somewhere_.
> An excellent communistic ideal, but realistically flawed, sadly.
Convince me.
> One is left with the fact that humans like control over as
> much as possible; and as such, we like to be able to control
> whether or not *other* people walk on land X, so that we can
> use land X for our own purposes, controlling it, effectively.
I'm not yet convinced.
I'm not ready to accept as fact that humans exist in the unalterable state of
wanting to control as much as possible. I certainly work with people who act
that way, but the ones I live with don't seem to. Some people are control
freaks, but that doesn't invalidate a philosophy.
Further, I don't think that a lack of ownership directly implies a lack of
rules. I can envision many systems of stewardship distribution that would
allow: current owner-like control, the ability to petition The People for land
use restrictions, owner-like control reduced from or increased over today's, or
complete fredom within certain legal guidelines that could be homogeneous or
not. The point of preventing trespass (I guess) is to protect yourself and
stuff from dangerous or theiving behavior of others, like hunting.
I doubt that the desire for control for the sake of control is an inherent
human attribute. I'd tend to chalk it up to bad parenting :-)
> Inevitably, given that land would be treated as a commons, a
> social system would develop leading to property rights. Just human nature, I
> would say.
Well, some enumeration of potentially transient property rights would be a
great idea. Technically a lease on a property is considered an ownership
interest and the leasee has property rights with regard to the leased property.
It could be similar in a social/stewardship model of land use. I don't have a
problem with property rights per se, just with the ownership of property. I
think the toughest part of my idealized vision is figuring out how to
periodically redistribute stewardship without causing undue hardship on
everyone. But that's essentially just a technical hurdle.
Chris
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
| (...) The issue quickly becomes conflict of rights. One expects that in Libertopia, it is believed that nobody has the right to kill another person. But by (in theory) buying up all space (air, land, sea, outer, inner, etc), one effectively is (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
47 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
