Land ownership

[NecroCommie]

I was asked the other day to write down an argumentative article into some random school internet publication. The topic was restricted to one concerning forestry, so I chose land and forest ownership especially in it's "importance" on modern forest industry and ecologic sustainability. I have some idea on the arguments already, but I want to see if you dudes have something I don't.

So, all your arguments against land-ownership here. Some obvious ones are doomed to arise like the ones addressing private ownership in general, so please avoid repeating already stated arguments. I thank thee for thine help in advance.

[Revy]

I don't support land ownership.

If someone owns most of the land on Earth, should we just respect that? No. That's capitalism's rules.

Socialism introduces the concept of collective and sustainable development of land. Not letting everyone have whatever they can get their hands on first.

[Uppercut]

The way I look at it, the Earth was here long before we were. That makes us "children of the Earth", so to speak, so I would recommend living with mother Earth, not just on it. This little piece of philosophical thought is why I don't support land ownership. Sure, you can still have a house but the land it sits on will belong to everyone in that community as well.

[leninpuncher]

I've actually turned quite a few Libertarians to socialism by showing them how stupid and arbitrary land ownership is. Especially the inheritance aspect; because modern law is totally unconcerned with who the land is inherited from. There are actually still lords and ladies in Britain who own land that was handed down to them by their feudal ancestors. Which is a bit like letting descendants of Nazis inherit the confiscated Jewish gold.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

"stupid" and "arbitrary" are completely ahistorical and unmaterialistic analyses of land ownsherhship

[NecroCommie]

I am about to point out how the very first claims of land were based on the fact that the would be owner used the land. Nowadays such justification rarely exists anymore, and since forests are always used collectively it would work especially on forest owners. I will be more thorough though.

I will then proceed to point out how most societies that have practiced monopolies of land are nowadays viewed as barbarious to the extreme. Even by the bourgeoisie. Societies such as Feudal europe, bourgeoisie colonies and finland of the 19th century. I will also point to numerous similarities between these systems and the modern polarizing countryside of the nordic countries. I will also warn how the previously mentioned societies were riddled with strife and conflict.

In the last part I will propose an immediate, and a long term solution to the problem. First one being complete collectivation of all land to local munipacilities, and the second phase consisting of distributing that land to regional councils governed with extreme democracy. I will also explain why these solutions are actually more effective than the modern form of forest industry, in relation to the three goals of forest development degreed by the forest universities of finland. These goals being economic efficiency, ecologic sustainability, and social sustainability.

[rebelmouse]

land ownership is bad because:
-it will bring people to conflict, as it was happened million times in the past. whatever is on/in that land (from food to energy).
solution: common ownership. it means all resources from/on land belong to all people, so people have no reason to make a war.
-it will give to owner possiblity to impose his/her will on other people. inside of familiy or even wider. for example, old people possess land and they will misuse it to push young people to do what old want, under excuse: this is my property, I decide here.
solution: common land secure equality among people and nobody can be master.

as someone said, earth belong to all of us, individuals and families should not use (use, not own) more than they need for their personal living and production of food. family should use but not possess land because of mentioned abolishing of hierarchy and power.

[cyu]

From http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/Reconciling+Property+Rights+with+Conquest

There are many definitions of theft – different societies have different laws governing control over objects and resources. This control is basically how property is defined. Different kinds of laws mean different concepts of property. Some wealthy property owners, when confronted with the possibility that the (more numerous) poor may vote for higher taxes on the wealthy, will argue that taxation is theft. Other less wealthy people, particularly those who work under someone else, may believe exploitation is theft. Then there's Proudhon's famous declaration that, "Property is theft."

The following are reactions to the concept of conquest from two different types of pro-capitalists.

Ownership Through Conquest is Justified

This view claims that conquest is justified because the conqueror risked his life (or at least risked the lives of his minions) in battle, and thus has earned the right to control.

However, these pro-capitalists are opposed to the concept of an anti-capitalist revolution, claiming that would be a violation of their property rights. If employees "conquer" their places of work by escorting their boss off company premises, these pro-capitalists do not see that as a "legitimate" form of conquest.

Ownership Through Conquest is Not Justified

Other pro-capitalists do not believe conquest is justified and yet they oppose returning conquered land and resources to the natives (or their descendents). They believe conquest is an injustice, but do not have a good idea of how to rectify that injustice.

Conquest results in wealth for the conquerors. Then that wealth is distributed to cronies and offspring. On and on it goes - not just in this country, but around the world. If you trace back the history of ownership of land and resources, how much of it doesn't originate in conquest (or what some would call theft)?

How far back do you have to go before you consider property valid? If one group of Australopithecus or Cro-Magnon conquered land from another group of Australopithecus or Cro-Magnon, do their ancestors have to return it? If not, why not? Is there a "statute of limitations"? If so, how many years does it have to be, and who decides on this number?

Why Have Society?

Personally, I don't (that's right, don't) support giving back everything to the natives (or their descendants). Instead, I assert that the resources be used for the benefit of everyone in that area, whether it's later settlers, recent immigrants, the natives, whatever. Human beings form societies in order to protect themselves. The point of the political, economic, and religious systems they set up is to benefit as many of the individuals in the population as possible. Because property requires society to enforce it, why should society enforce something that is not beneficial to it? It is not an "axiomatic" right - if it has become perverted to the point at which it is judged no longer beneficial, then it (or at least parts of it) should be dispensed with - especially if it is causing the death of others.