5 ms·

What’s that statement based on? Ownership doesn’t exist in nature, it’s a concept humans have invented and enforce through cultural and legal means. Ownership i

What’s that statement based on? Ownership doesn’t exist in nature, it’s a concept humans have invented and enforce through cultural and legal means. Ownership is just one method of providing occupation, but occupation can be achieved through other means: for example, guaranteed leases for a fixed period. There’s various countries that have models beyond just simple private ownership. Even in countries like the US where land ownership is considered sacrosanct, the government will still take it away if you don’t pay taxes — it’s not ownership in the truest sense.

speeder 3y ago
Even other animals have the concept of land ownership. They might not use our words, but see what happen when you take resources from the territory of a bear or other territorial animal. Even trees do that. Eucalyptus literally poisons land near it to kill competition.
- oldtownroad 3y ago
  That’s occupation, not ownership. Ownership can’t exist without a legal or cultural structure to enforce it. A human can occupy land and defend that occupation with violence but that does not mean they own the land. A society can exist without ownership.
pandaman 3y ago
>Ownership doesn’t exist in nature What do you call the territorial animals then? A tiger will chase other tigers from the area it considers its own. Same as wolves and many other species. It's not exactly property in the sense that it cannot be traded but it is indeed the ownership. Without property rights humans would have had the same: the strong chase the weak off their land or force them to pay for being on the land.
- FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
  > Without property rights humans would have had the same: the strong chase the weak off their land or force them to pay for being on the land. That's precisely what property rights are: "the strong [...] forc[ing the weak ...] to pay for being on the land". That's what property taxes are. To "have rights" is to be paid up with a protection racket. Yet as depressing as that is, it beats the alternative! In many places it's not a bad deal!
  - pandaman 3y ago
    They are precisely not that. A frail old lady can have property rights and use them to force strong young men off her property.
    - FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
      This works, ultimately, because the frail old lady can call the police, who outnumber and outgun the strong young men. There is admittedly also an element of magic here: People generally view property rights as legitimate, and the police who enforce them as legitimate, and so on. But when that belief system fails, it's ultimately the State's ability to deploy force that reestablishes the faith.
      - pandaman 3y ago
        > because the frail old lady can call the police, who outnumber and outgun the strong young men. Indeed, the law is ultimately based on force but it still does allow physically weak to have rights, unlike a natural law.
danans 3y ago
> Ownership is just one method of providing occupation, but occupation can be achieved through other means: for example, guaranteed leases for a fixed period In practice, with housing, such leases are effectively ownership. The terms on these are often 100 years or more, and when they come to term, since there are often significant improvements built in the land, the terms can't be renegotiated since the lessor can't force the sale or relocation of the improvements.

speeder 3y ago

Even other animals have the concept of land ownership. They might not use our words, but see what happen when you take resources from the territory of a bear or other territorial animal. Even trees do that. Eucalyptus literally poisons land near it to kill competition.

oldtownroad 3y ago
That’s occupation, not ownership. Ownership can’t exist without a legal or cultural structure to enforce it. A human can occupy land and defend that occupation with violence but that does not mean they own the land. A society can exist without ownership.

pandaman 3y ago

>Ownership doesn’t exist in nature What do you call the territorial animals then? A tiger will chase other tigers from the area it considers its own. Same as wolves and many other species. It's not exactly property in the sense that it cannot be traded but it is indeed the ownership. Without property rights humans would have had the same: the strong chase the weak off their land or force them to pay for being on the land.

FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
> Without property rights humans would have had the same: the strong chase the weak off their land or force them to pay for being on the land. That's precisely what property rights are: "the strong [...] forc[ing the weak ...] to pay for being on the land". That's what property taxes are. To "have rights" is to be paid up with a protection racket. Yet as depressing as that is, it beats the alternative! In many places it's not a bad deal!
- pandaman 3y ago
  They are precisely not that. A frail old lady can have property rights and use them to force strong young men off her property.
  - FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
    This works, ultimately, because the frail old lady can call the police, who outnumber and outgun the strong young men. There is admittedly also an element of magic here: People generally view property rights as legitimate, and the police who enforce them as legitimate, and so on. But when that belief system fails, it's ultimately the State's ability to deploy force that reestablishes the faith.
    - pandaman 3y ago
      > because the frail old lady can call the police, who outnumber and outgun the strong young men. Indeed, the law is ultimately based on force but it still does allow physically weak to have rights, unlike a natural law.

danans 3y ago

> Ownership is just one method of providing occupation, but occupation can be achieved through other means: for example, guaranteed leases for a fixed period In practice, with housing, such leases are effectively ownership. The terms on these are often 100 years or more, and when they come to term, since there are often significant improvements built in the land, the terms can't be renegotiated since the lessor can't force the sale or relocation of the improvements.