The Use Of Land Is A Natural Right

[Authoritarian]

It leads to clarity as the underlying assumption is brought into awareness, where it can then be properly debated.

I don't agree, stating that objects don't exist doesn't help anyone, it just stops the debate from reaching its logical conclusion, but I suppose thats the point.

I could start using the word ground instead of land to suit you, but then you'd simply interject with the claim that 'the ground doesn't exist' to ensure similar disruption so we'd be back to square one.

Land does exist.

Edited January 31, 2010 by chefdave

[Injin]

I don't agree, stating that objects don't exist doesn't help anyone, it just stops the debate from reaching its logical conclusion, but I suppose thats the point.

As I never said that objects don't exist what's your point?

I could start using the word ground instead of land to suit you, but then you'd simply interject with the claim that 'the ground doesn't exist' to ensure similar disruption so we're back to square one.

No, the ground exists, land in the context of the OP and the thread doesn't.

You've obviously not read the OP or the thread, seen me do my bit and gone off on one.

Land does exist.

Not in the sense of it in the OP it doesn't.

[the_austrian]

They can't be upheald by force because that requires that the person with the most force doesn't use it.

if they don't use it, then they must have some other reason for following property rights.

It would be impossible for any single person to control all of the property because the others would collaborate against that person, hence the advantage of this type of Governmental structure.

The group would collaborate against the possessive person to prevent them from getting all the property. It is individually advantageous for each member to act in this defensive way.

[Authoritarian]

Not in the sense of it in the OP it doesn't.

Ah, a claim to authority. Maybe you could ask the OP whether land exists to get a definitive answer.

[Injin]

Ah, a claim to authority. Maybe you could ask the OP whether land exists to get a definitive answer.

No, the OP defined land in s aspecific way.

Measured against reality, that definition doesn't exist.

Please try and keep up.

[Authoritarian]

No, the OP defined land in s aspecific way.

Measured against reality, that definition doesn't exist.

Please try and keep up.

[nixy]

I don't agree, stating that objects don't exist doesn't help anyone, it just stops the debate from reaching its logical conclusion, but I suppose thats the point.

I could start using the word ground instead of land to suit you, but then you'd simply interject with the claim that 'the ground doesn't exist' to ensure similar disruption so we'd be back to square one.

Land does exist.

I think he means land is to ground (earth) as forest is to tree?

A very subtle but important difference in terms of existence and therefore 'ownership'..

We can 'own' earth and trees (they physically exist?) but not land or forests (they don't physically exist) or at least in the sense you can pick 'em up and move them somewhere else(??).

I think.

Anyway in absolute truth we none of us own anything, we just rent it for a bit while we're 'ere.

Injin??

[Injin]

Ground -

Land -

[Stars]

Everybody already has the right to land. They have the right to exchange the results of their labour for land. It is valid to argue that too much labour has to be exchanged for too little land but I do not think that one can argue that we have no right at all to acquire land.

'Acquiring land' or acquiring permission to use land is tantamount to acquiring permission to enter or use the world. Did you ever stop to think what breed of super humans hold such awesome rights to sell and where they themselves bought them and off who?

[Stars]

There's nothing wrong with my reading, your use of the English language though is causing all sorts of problems.

Pointing at the ground and saying 'land doesn't exist' is the equilavent of pointing at the sun or a mountain and saying that they too don't exist. Its clumsy way of conveying the point that ownership of these objects is morally questionable, there is a language problem here but its not the one you're highlighting.

Land as property is a faulty concept, its amusing that you'll try every trick in the book just to avoid stating the obvious. (Don't worry, you're not alone).

Well said, chef

[LuckyOne]

'Acquiring land' or acquiring permission to use land is tantamount to acquiring permission to enter or use the world. Did you ever stop to think what breed of super humans hold such awesome rights to sell and where they themselves bought them and off who?

The right to own land individually has evolved over time in our culture.

I agree that other cultures have not given individual members to own land and that all land is owned collectively. This applies to some old indigenous cultures and some newer political contructs.

Most countries have a blend of individually owned and collectively owned land. It seems to have worked out reasonably well for most.

[Stars]

If their was a concept called "Air" whuich meant that air was divided up into little segments instead of being one indivisible mass I certainly would say air doesn't exist.

But you never/rarely say 'land property doesn't exist' to make this point, you rather say 'land doesn't exist', and you say it to the people who are trying to point out that there is a conceptual problem with land property. To clarify, you present 'land does not exist' as in contradiction to something you are actually trying to say but for some reason not saying - which is really screwed .

[Injin]

The right to own land individually has evolved over time in our culture.

I agree that other cultures have not given individual members to own land and that all land is owned collectively. This applies to some old indigenous cultures and some newer political contructs.

Most countries have a blend of individually owned and collectively owned land. It seems to have worked out reasonably well for most.

Who does what where now?

[Injin]

But you never/rarely say 'land property doesn't exist' to make this point, you rather say 'land doesn't exist', and you say it to the people who are trying to point out that there is a conceptual problem with land property. To clarify, you present 'land does not exist' as in contradiction to something you are actually trying to say but for some reason not saying - which is really screwed .

I remove the distance between violence and concept.

And that's about all needs be done.

You waste your time attacking the concept.

[Stars]

The right to own land individually has evolved over time in our culture.

That is a non answer and i suspect, quite deliberately so - wife beating and child abuse also evolved

So your answer is 'nowhere'? People simply took the world forcefully and this theft is now backed by law which gives out special privileges to exclude others from the world. This is the point being made by your opponents

I agree that other cultures have not given individual members to own land and that all land is owned collectively. This applies to some old indigenous cultures and some newer political contructs.

That's interesting...not sure how it's particularily relavant to the point though

[Stars]

I remove the distance between violence and concept.

And that's about all needs be done.

You waste your time attacking the concept.

I don't - i wondered why you are presenting an argument that is in agreement with people as if it contradicted them

[Injin]

I don't - i wondered why you are presenting an argument that is in agreement with people as if it contradicted them

I don't agree with you.

You focus on land when it's a subset of a larger issue - the use of violence to solve social problems.

[Game_Over]

It's not like communism, we each have a right to land, just as we have a right to oxygen. There would be a minimum entitlement, according to market value of the land. The party members don't get anything above other people, or at least to no further extent than they do at the present time.

This is what has happened in Zimbabwe and elsewhere.

If land is parcelled up into millions of small plots the best that everyone can hope for is to exist at subsistence level I'm afraid.

Zimbabwe was the bread basket of Africa but after large efficient farms were broken up they are on the verge of starvation.

As you say, in Communist countries no one owns anything - everything belongs to the state.

Capitalism may not seem fair and it is certainly not perfect but the vast majority of people are far, far better off under capitalism than any other system that has so far been devised.

[LuckyOne]

That is a non answer and i suspect, quite deliberately so - wife beating and child abuse also evolved

So your answer is 'nowhere'? People simply took the world forcefully and this theft is now backed by law which gives out special privileges to exclude others from the world. This is the point being made by your opponents

That's interesting...not sure how it's particularily relavant to the point though

We have given ourselves the right to own land in the same way that we have given ourselves the right to free speech, to vote, to freedom from discrimination etc etc.

There is no such thing as a natural right. There is no enforcer of rights apart from ourselves.

The question that might be useful is whether we should continue to grant ourselves the right to own land. If we grant ourselves that right, what cost should we impose on those who benefit from that right?

[Game_Over]

I don't agree with you.

You focus on land when it's a subset of a larger issue - the use of violence to solve social problems.

Ultimately this is how all disputes are resolved - either by violence or where it is not used - the threat of violence.

There is no other way.

[LuckyOne]

I don't agree with you.

You focus on land when it's a subset of a larger issue - the use of violence to solve social problems.

How do we enforce rights without being able to exert punishment?

[Injin]

Ultimately this is how all disputes are resolved - either by violence or where it is not used - the threat of violence.

There is no other way.

Yes, there is.

Discussion, preferably using facts and evidence.

Agree?

[Injin]

How do we enforce rights without being able to exert punishment?

You don't enforce rights, there is no need to.

[Stars]

I don't agree with you.

But, hilariously, In this you do agree with me.....and everyone else in the thread you have made this point to

You focus on land when it's a subset of a larger issue - the use of violence to solve social problems.

Land is important because it is the only remaining pillar of coercion which is camouflaged effectivly as property - a camouflage that is more or less accepted at face value by most and confuses the hell out of nearly all issues

[LuckyOne]

You don't enforce rights, there is no need to.

Society has given me the right not to be murdered. Most people choose not to violate that right. If someone chooses to violate that right, society is currently set up to punish them.

How can society be arranged so that absolutely no-one will choose to violate any of the rights that society has granted us in the absence of punishment?