5 ms·
The simplest solution is that land ownership shouldn't exist. Land belongs to all.
by Miner49er 6y ago
The simplest solution is that land ownership shouldn't exist. Land belongs to all.
- fennecfoxen 6y agoNot so simple. Kind of hard to run a farm and grow your food when "land belongs to all". And who'd be stupid enough to put up a building on land they don't own?
- jcranmer 6y agoFunnily enough, farming on common land was a major part of the English economy several centuries ago, and presumably other Medieval countries as well. What do you think the "tragedy of the commons" is named for?
- sxv 6y agoI think you are suffering from "I can't imagine how things could work differently because I only know how things work currently". Where I am located, on the coast of Ecuador, most land is collectively owned by the "comuna", or a group of local villagers. They sell temporary land-use permits (usufruct) but the land will always belong to the comuna. I can still build on it with the understanding that I would only pass it to my kin if both they and I were continuous inhabitants. The system is designed to promote community and agriculture and prevent speculative interest. From my vantage point the system is working quite well: many wonderful buildings and projects are springing up all over the place.
- fennecfoxen 6y agoThere are many different ways things could work! Some of them work better than others. I'm aware of this particular way already, as it turns out. It's as simple as the community, which is to say, it's not simple at all, and incredibly prone to cliqueishness. And if the land very much does not belong to "all". It does not belong to me. It does not belong to the immigrant. It belongs to a rough local equivalent of a suburban HOA.
- refurb 6y agoThis isn't that different than the US. When you "own" land you have freehold ownership - you own it within the framework of the state and it can be taken away (with compensation), taxed, etc. In essence, the state is letting you own it. It's not allodial title which would be true ownership.
- oh_sigh 6y agoSo land ownership is bad, but granting exclusive use of land for a set period of time is okay? Who grants the exclusive use of land, and from what authority? If I'm not a part of that comuna, do I need to abide by the rules of who gets exclusive use of a given plot of land?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThe model is that the community living there has sole authority and exclusive use of the land. If you're not part of the community, you don't have and can't obtain exclusive rights to the land. I can't speak to the original example of Ecuador, but this is how it works in American Samoa as well.
- oh_sigh 6y agoRight, so there is land ownership. One group of people (comune members) keep another group of people(non-comune members) off of their land by essentially a threat of violence. This seems not at all different from the system practiced in, say, the US.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThe difference is that it's seen as an inherent right of the community, not a title that can be freely transferred to the highest bidder.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]