4 ms·

>nor on rigid land ownership rules. Land ownership was formalized about as soon as there was a reason for anyone to own land - i.e., as soon as any given peopl

>nor on rigid land ownership rules. Land ownership was formalized about as soon as there was a reason for anyone to own land - i.e., as soon as any given people started doing pastoralism and agriculture.

inglor_cz 1y ago
Even without formal land ownership, pre-modern societies were keenly aware about who exploits which scarce natural resources. There is just no way to cut scarcity out of human life experience. For hunters and gatherers, it helped that their population density was relatively low. But there was still competition for good hunting grounds.
- FuriouslyAdrift 1y ago
  War has almost always been over resource control...
adamlett 1y ago
Possibly, but what we think of as land ownership today — land as a commodity that can be freely bought and sold, and as something that gives the owner near-total control over how it’s used — is actually a fairly recent development. In feudal Europe, land could only be “owned” by a lord, and even then it was bound up in obligations both to their superiors and to the peasants working it. There were all sorts of customary rights layered on top: in Denmark, for example, nobles had a monopoly on hunting and timber in their forests, but peasants still had rights to gather firewood, berries, nuts, mushrooms, and so on. Village fields were also often organized under the open-field system, where land was divided into strips. Each household got a mix of good and poor soil, and in some places those strips were even periodically reallocated to keep things fair. It’s a very different picture from modern private property.
- mrangle 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > Then, you're arguing for feudalist land ownership customs? This is a really bad-faith reframing of the parent comment.
    - mrangle 1y ago
      > Then, you're arguing for feudalist land ownership customs? >This is a really bad-faith reframing of the parent comment. How so? Very respectfully, perhaps you should read with more care. See here: >those strips were even periodically reallocated to keep things fair. Which stands alone as an argument for feudalist customs, but I also argue that it frames the rest as an argument-in-favor. Such as this, seemingly positively highlighting community "customary rights". >In feudal Europe, land could only be “owned” by a lord, and even then it was bound up in obligations both to their superiors and to the peasants working it. There were all sorts of customary rights layered on top: Critique my answer, but accusing a bad faith argument doesn't hold up. No one who reads for comprehension would credibly interpret the post as anything but an argument for feudalist customs. To be generous: even if the over-arching intent possibly is to change modern legal customs via any necessary argument. That may be, but highlighting feudalism is a morally perilous way to go about it. I disagree with the perspective entirely, but if someone is going to advocate for it then they should find a less morally backwards method than highlighting the ostensible fairness of the feudal era.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        The point was very clearly not "feudal lords should come back and that system was good". The point was "even the feudal lords realized you have to have some concept of shared/common purpose lands or things go bad fast".
- ahazred8ta 1y ago
  There were some premodern societies where land possession was very fluid. But. There were plenty of others where land ownership worked almost exactly like today's systems. The oldest clay tablets talk about buying and selling land, systems of laws protecting land ownership, court cases involving land disputes, and surveyors laying out stone boundary markers that were meant to stay put for centuries. Incan quipu cords were records of who owned which piece of land. Asian rice terraces have been individually owned for thousands of years. This urban legend that private property is not an ancient concept is really wonky.
  - adamlett 1y ago
    > There were some premodern societies where land possession was very fluid. Yes, commons, rotating field systems, and similar arrangements show that. > But. There were plenty of others where land ownership worked almost exactly like today’s systems. Not quite. Transactions existed, but they were embedded in systems of obligation and sovereignty — kings, emperors, or lords claimed ultimate rights. That’s a different structure from modern absolute private ownership. > The oldest clay tablets talk about buying and selling land, systems of laws protecting land ownership, court cases involving land disputes, and surveyors laying out stone boundary markers that were meant to stay put for centuries. Those records exist, but even in Mesopotamia rulers could reallocate or confiscate land. Ownership wasn’t as secure or absolute as a modern freehold title. > Incan quipu cords were records of who owned which piece of land. Quipus tracked obligations and allocations. Land under the Inca was held communally and redistributed, not privately owned. > Asian rice terraces have been individually owned for thousands of years. Some land was inherited and sold, but there were also systems of redistribution (for example, the Chinese equal-field system). That’s not the same as permanent, alienable freehold. > This urban legend that private property is not an ancient concept is really wonky. It’s not an urban legend. Property has always been a bundle of rights that varied across societies. The modern model of land as a freely tradable commodity giving the holder near-total monopoly is comparatively recent.

inglor_cz 1y ago

Even without formal land ownership, pre-modern societies were keenly aware about who exploits which scarce natural resources. There is just no way to cut scarcity out of human life experience. For hunters and gatherers, it helped that their population density was relatively low. But there was still competition for good hunting grounds.

FuriouslyAdrift 1y ago
War has almost always been over resource control...

adamlett 1y ago

Possibly, but what we think of as land ownership today — land as a commodity that can be freely bought and sold, and as something that gives the owner near-total control over how it’s used — is actually a fairly recent development. In feudal Europe, land could only be “owned” by a lord, and even then it was bound up in obligations both to their superiors and to the peasants working it. There were all sorts of customary rights layered on top: in Denmark, for example, nobles had a monopoly on hunting and timber in their forests, but peasants still had rights to gather firewood, berries, nuts, mushrooms, and so on. Village fields were also often organized under the open-field system, where land was divided into strips. Each household got a mix of good and poor soil, and in some places those strips were even periodically reallocated to keep things fair. It’s a very different picture from modern private property.

mrangle 1y ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > Then, you're arguing for feudalist land ownership customs? This is a really bad-faith reframing of the parent comment.
  - mrangle 1y ago
    > Then, you're arguing for feudalist land ownership customs? >This is a really bad-faith reframing of the parent comment. How so? Very respectfully, perhaps you should read with more care. See here: >those strips were even periodically reallocated to keep things fair. Which stands alone as an argument for feudalist customs, but I also argue that it frames the rest as an argument-in-favor. Such as this, seemingly positively highlighting community "customary rights". >In feudal Europe, land could only be “owned” by a lord, and even then it was bound up in obligations both to their superiors and to the peasants working it. There were all sorts of customary rights layered on top: Critique my answer, but accusing a bad faith argument doesn't hold up. No one who reads for comprehension would credibly interpret the post as anything but an argument for feudalist customs. To be generous: even if the over-arching intent possibly is to change modern legal customs via any necessary argument. That may be, but highlighting feudalism is a morally perilous way to go about it. I disagree with the perspective entirely, but if someone is going to advocate for it then they should find a less morally backwards method than highlighting the ostensible fairness of the feudal era.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      The point was very clearly not "feudal lords should come back and that system was good". The point was "even the feudal lords realized you have to have some concept of shared/common purpose lands or things go bad fast".
ahazred8ta 1y ago
There were some premodern societies where land possession was very fluid. But. There were plenty of others where land ownership worked almost exactly like today's systems. The oldest clay tablets talk about buying and selling land, systems of laws protecting land ownership, court cases involving land disputes, and surveyors laying out stone boundary markers that were meant to stay put for centuries. Incan quipu cords were records of who owned which piece of land. Asian rice terraces have been individually owned for thousands of years. This urban legend that private property is not an ancient concept is really wonky.
- adamlett 1y ago
  > There were some premodern societies where land possession was very fluid. Yes, commons, rotating field systems, and similar arrangements show that. > But. There were plenty of others where land ownership worked almost exactly like today’s systems. Not quite. Transactions existed, but they were embedded in systems of obligation and sovereignty — kings, emperors, or lords claimed ultimate rights. That’s a different structure from modern absolute private ownership. > The oldest clay tablets talk about buying and selling land, systems of laws protecting land ownership, court cases involving land disputes, and surveyors laying out stone boundary markers that were meant to stay put for centuries. Those records exist, but even in Mesopotamia rulers could reallocate or confiscate land. Ownership wasn’t as secure or absolute as a modern freehold title. > Incan quipu cords were records of who owned which piece of land. Quipus tracked obligations and allocations. Land under the Inca was held communally and redistributed, not privately owned. > Asian rice terraces have been individually owned for thousands of years. Some land was inherited and sold, but there were also systems of redistribution (for example, the Chinese equal-field system). That’s not the same as permanent, alienable freehold. > This urban legend that private property is not an ancient concept is really wonky. It’s not an urban legend. Property has always been a bundle of rights that varied across societies. The modern model of land as a freely tradable commodity giving the holder near-total monopoly is comparatively recent.