Posted by Flemming on July 21, 1996 at 15:55:17:
In Reply to: Ownership of land posted by Nicholas Albery on July 21, 1996 at 15:49:42:
: I like the idea of autonomous neighbourhoods, but you (Flemming) go on to say that there would be no ownership of land, but people could keep a piece to themselves as long as
: they were caretaking it adequately:
: "If somebody is responsibly and productively engaged in a certain activity, they can be said to own that activity. "
: Wouldn't that lead to a lot of feelings of insecurity? Who would judge whether their caretaking was adequate? Could anyone go to court or a local council to have them off the land with a claim they could look after it better?
Well, I think that ownership of land and other kinds of abstract ownership, not associated with what one actualy is DOING, has a detrimental, fragmenting effect on a society. I agree with you, it also gives a certain security to know that one OWNS something, that one has a piece of paper on one's land and nobody can take it away from you.
However, even that kind of ownership is very fragile. Most people don't really own their land or their houses or their cars, but they have an agreement with a bank that they will be paying for it for the next X number of years, and if they keep their end of the deal, they can probably stay. But if they don't they are suddenly no longer "owners".
Furthermore, most governments can take your land away very easily by charging you with any of an assortment of offenses they have in store. Like, in the U.S. if a guest of yours drops a marijuana butt behind your cabinet, the authorities can potentially confiscate your property, without court case and without any available recourse, if they so choose.
So, I'm saying that in the current scheme of things your property isn't very safe. Authorities, like courts, don't really give a damn about whether you do something useful with your property, whether you've worked hard for it, whether you are a good guy, etc. Somebody sues you and wins, you're out.
Now, as to making a societal system without abstract ownership of land, I can't say I have all the details worked out on how it would practically work. Mostly I'm stating that I think it is a useful direction to work towards.
My idea is actually that your de-facto property would be a lot more safe than in the current scheme. Your speculative de-jure property would not.
What I would imagine for ownership disputes would be exactly that the people involved, or a neutral group of mediators called together for the purpose, will take a look at what the parties are actually doing, what their intentions are, how much work they've put into the property in question.
The way I see it, it should not be possible to take away somebody's property that they are putting to good use, based on somebody's detached assignment of fault for some totally unrelated matter.
I realize that, to many people, the kind of loose organization that isn't based on black and white legal ownership would conjure up visions of people coming in and taking away their property arbitrarily. I see it as quite the opposite. No arbitrary judgements, but rather dealing with what the actual
scene is.
Let's say you and I and a bunch of other people were residing on the same piece of land, such as in a neighbourhood or community, but starting pretty much from scratch. You might move into one piece of land and turn it into a pumpkin patch, and I might move into another piece of land and turn it into a zen garden. Whether each of those choices are going to work well for the
community depends on a number of things. How much land do we take up; do we cultivate it only for our own use, or to share with others; do we use up limited resources that are then lacking for something else, like growing needed crops; what do the other people around think about it; how much work have we put into it? If the space we take up isn't particularly missing
anywhere else, there probably isn't any reason to worry about it, but if it is, or if its use is bothering our neighbours, we would probably need to talk with others about it.
In other words, I would give human relations precedence over on-paper ownership. Like, if we were having our little community I don't necessarily think somebody should be able to walk in, over the protests of everybody there, and make a motocross raceway track in our midst.
The feelings of security would come from good relations with people around you. If you are amongst friends and your geographical setting and your associations are harmonious and well-functioning, then you will naturally feel secure. And people around you would spontaneously guard and protect your security.
On the other hand, if you plan on hoarding resources and leaving them unused, or you plan on being obnoxious to a lot of people, then you might not feel secure about maintaining the properties you're using.
So, the no-land-ownership scenario sort of goes along with moving from a society of alienated commuters behind garden walls towards a society of friendly relations, communities, and meaningful work.
- Flemming