3 ms·
Land "ownership" has no basis in natural law since it's a formalization of violence (all private land was either taken from someone else, or declared to be owne
by qq66 12y ago
Land "ownership" has no basis in natural law since it's a formalization of violence (all private land was either taken from someone else, or declared to be owned by threatening newcomers with violence). You can't own land the way you can own the fruit of your labor, so all land ownership is contingent on the consent of the community.
- icebraining 12y agoThat doesn't mean that the community shouldn't simply decide to actually grant full property rights to whoever is deemed to have the title. You don't need to rely on nonsense like "natural rights" to oppose the government-granted licensing system. (You should also not assume I support full property rights)
- vidarh 12y agoThe community could, but the community won't in most cases for the simple reason that most communities find it incredibly damaging to neighbours to let people do whatever they want on "their" property. If I were to, for example, start a 24/7 brothel in my terraced suburban house, complete with front garden strip show set to loud music and light show, it would have tremendous negative effects on my neighbours.
- icebraining 12y agoYour example isn't relevant. Full property rights doesn't mean you can blast your neighbors with loud music and bright lights; after all, they would have full property rights as well, which would be affected by that.
- zo1 12y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle You don't need the consent of the community to declare land as your own. There are other moral systems and ideas to the ones you specify. Just putting it out there, you know.
- qq66 12y agoMaybe, but certainly very little land in the United States wasn't taken from someone at the wrong end of a rifle.