Property Rights and Freedom of the Individual - Imagine No Possession
79Imagine...
"There are no problems facing the world today..
..that a respect for liberty and property rights can't fix.".
That statement was made by fellow Hub Author ledefensetech, someone whose great work with disadvantaged children entitles him to a hearing in any field. Now, to be fair, the discussion was about politics and economics. Clearly ledefensetech was not claiming that a respect for liberty and property rights can cure Alzheimer's disease or bring rain to the desert. But even within the intended domain, how true is the claim?
In this article I want mainly to ask relevant questions, to find if there is a general consensus 'out there' in respect of property rights and freedom. But first, a story...
Last Friday, a few of us went to Qatar's Dukhan Beach, a natural, largely undeveloped mile or two where the desert sands meet the waters of the Gulf. Someone rich has built a rather beautiful family villa with a sea frontage. He has erected fences to prevent people crossing his 'private' beach. He has extended the fences all the way to the low tide mark. Probably, under Qatari law, he was allowed to do that. You and I don't know. But my question is, why should one man's property rights impinge on the rights of every one else to pass freely along the beach?
And, where one has led the way, others will follow. Soon, a line of impressive villas will appear, and the beach will become the 'property' and private play ground of a few wealthy families. It will no longer be accessible to those who simply want to swim and relax with friends, but have no desire to possess and exclude.
"Imagine no possession..
..I wonder if you can?" Personally, I can't, at least not in this world. However, as in all things, there surely has to be a degree of moderation? Two of my most loved possessions are the flute my father bought me 43 years ago and the classic guitar I saved up for and bought for myself two years later. I would be truly surprised if anyone seriously challenged my right to own these old instruments.
And then there's my house. It's not huge, it's been home to many families before we bought it, and will probably be home to many more before it's finally demolished. It's mine for a time, that's all. But I'd be none too impressed if a few total strangers claimed the right to move into my spare room.
In other words, I respect property rights, starting with my own. But there are limits to my respect.
Schiehallion
"For these are my mountains..
..and I'm going home". Scots, the world over, understand the strength of the bond that ties us to the land, especially the lochs and mountains of the Highlands. The picture is the mountain Schiehallion, seen from Loch Rannoch. Schiehallion is owned by the John Muir Trust who care for its footpaths, flora and fauna, keep it accessible to walkers and climbers, and prevent inappropriate 'development' within their bounds. A success story. But many of Scotland's mountains are owned by private concerns who erect barbed-wire fences to protect the game birds, prosecute 'trespassers', and allow access only to the rich hunting fraternity. My questions this time are these: Should private concerns or individuals be allowed to buy a mountain? Are local people justified in cutting the barbed wire and walking where they please?
Should wealth alone entitle people to buy inordinate amounts of land, mountains, islands, stretches of river? I think not. I think that with the privilege of ownership comes responsibility to preserve or develop the land for the common good.
"This land is your land...
...This land is my land". We should also remember that property rights are not absolute. There are disputed borders all over the world and millions of displaced and dispossessed people. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the dispossessed should just accept a moratorium along the lines of 'all existing borders and boundaries shall become binding from 12 noon on Friday'? It's not going to happen, is it? The prime example is the region comprising Israel and Palestine, but there are many others. The simplistic idea that 'respecting property rights' will solve such intractable problems is a non-starter.
To round up:
It appears to me that while it is very easy to claim property rights and liberty as absolutes, in the real world they are as relative as everything else and subject to the imperative of moderation, thus:
- Rights become relative when to exercise them affects the rights of others.
- Personal wealth does not justify restriction of others' freedoms.
- With the the privilege of ownership comes the responsibility of stewardship.
- Possession is a fact of life but it does not confer absolute rights.
- Wealth alone should not confer the absolute right to purchase.
Thank you for reading!
And thank you, ledefensetech, for stimulating this train of thought. I always enjoy our discussions even when I can't fully agree with you!
The songs referenced in this hub are:
- Imagine, by John Lennon
- These are my Mountains, Scottish Traditional
- This Land is Your Land, by Woodie Guthrie
Woodie Guthrie - This land is your land
CommentsLoading...
Thought provoking hub, Para. Good read!
Hi Kartika - I agree that it is wrong. Some beach-front hotel developments can be OK, provided that most of the beach remains public. But wholly private, closed annexation is for no-one's benefit.
Thanks habee - thinking is good ;)
I like the concept of stewardship. Why should one man have the right to exclude others from vast tracts of land? It makes no sense to me. Here on the south coast there is a short stretch on Hove seafront where a row of large houses have private access to the beach. It's known as 'millionaire's row' locally because of the wealth and fame of it's inhabitants. It's always puzzled me how this ever came about, because, as you know, Brighton and Hove have a wonderful stretch of historic seafront, all beautifully kept and available for public use. To slice off a corner for the use of a few individuals seems wrong somehow.
I believe in property rights. I guess it's just a matter of point of view. If I'm poor, I think it is not right for the wealthy to buy a mountain. If I'm wealthy, and if I buy a mountain, then that is my abode. What is wrong is for the community of people to allow private ownership of natural resources that all should have access to and that may or may not include a mountain. People in America develop a ski resort on mountains, for example. I see nothing wrong with that. I have enjoyed what they developed and have paid for the right to go onto that property for recreation. What you are saying is that if someone closes off beach access, that is wrong. I would agree with you. Somehow, the community must allow beach and mountain access. Perhaps the person's expenditure to develop the mountain or beach should also be recognized, allowing him to have people use his development for a fee, or at least to be able to walk by the water past your development. You write beautifully, Paraglider. Keep it up.
Don White
Interesting Hub, Paraglider.
You already know my thoughts upon the matter - I pretty much agree with you about everything concerning property rights :)
Ironically, no one in the U.S. has a 'right' to own any lands here or any property built upon them, unless conquering and murdering indigenous peoples confers such rights to the conquerers. I suppose historically it usually does, but I hardly feel proud about it and certainly not virtuous. I would never tout such dubious 'rights' as the highest standard for creation of social order and solving problems.
I have not had much my entire life, so, not having had much property, loss of property is not much to me either. I need shelter, food, clothing, and something worthwhile to do. Ownership, to the degree that it meets those basic needs, is maybe a necessity ad I'm fine with it to that degree. But I'd be fine if my needs were met in some other way. Sometimes owning things is more trouble that it is worth, and land and houses perhaps even more so. But I don't want to write my own hub here. Thank you for stimulating discussion PG. You are so good at that.
If it weren't for property ownership, I would not be able to do what I do. I would have to work for somebody else. Bow would be in a sanctuary or a zoo. My daughter could never have been born. And... I'd be miserable!
Come to think of it, Bow would never have been born either. Think of all the people and animals in this world who owe their very existence to property ownership!
There is property ownership and then there is property ownership - I am buying a little house - I love having my own property and have had houses for years. I love having a garden and making a home for birds and my animals as well. That can be a good thing for people. Then there is ownership of land that includes thousands of acres of prime and very limited land, such as beaches, forests, etc. Robert Redford has done a beautiful thing with Sundance - he has saved it from devastation and kept it pristine because he wants to be a steward of the land - he used his right to buy land for to help preserve natural resources. Then there are those who buy land only for profit without thinking of the common good or the environment - that I have a problem with. There are people who can afford to buy entire islands, and in effect, they are now owners of these very limited resources of the earth. Personally, I would be very happy in a nice clean apartment that overlooked a public beach that was open to all! I think it is interesting to consider a shift in our thinking - what would it be like if we all felt we had equal ownership of resources and equal responsibility to care for them? Thanks Paraglider for the inspiration!
Amanda - you are right, I think. The coastline should not be owned by individuals. And, though I didn't touch on it in the hub, it should certainly never be possible to 'inherit' a piece of the coast. But inheritance is a whole new topic!
Don - I think I said clearly enough that I too believe in property rights. But only up to a point. Such thimgs as mountains and rivers should not be for sale. Society should legislate in these matters. Developing a resort that most people can/could afford to spend a week at, now and then, is one thing. "Developing" a mountain as a highly exclusive firing range for the very rich is quite another. Such developments should surely go through an approval process by the local community?
Hi Sufi - yes, I know, but thanks for passing through and re-confirming!
Pam - Yes. There is the old joke about the Laird (Scottish landowner) trying to chuck a couple of locals off his land:
- what right have you to say it's your land?
- my ancestors fought for it.
- OK, pal, I'll fight you for it now!
There is no answer to that. This is one of the reasons I think inheritance is a flawed concept. Without inheritance, the land would revert to the state, as it should. Buying land for you own use is maybe acceptable, but buying it in perpetuity is doubtful.
Aya - Did you read the hub? I said I support property rights, but in moderation. Moderate ownership is fine. Extreme ownership is an infringement of the rights of others. There are no absolutes in such matters.
Kartika - thanks for coming back with the follow up comment. We're in complete agreement that there is nothing wrong with proportionate ownership. The problem is with those people and corporations who think their wealth justifies their infringement of the rights of others.
Paraglider, I'll admit it. I have no idea what "moderation" means. I have never known what it meant when the Church used this concept. I still don't know when liberals use it.
What does it mean when it comes to someone's existence? Does it mean my children have a moderate right to exist? If I spend less than X number of dollars bringing them into the world it's okay? But more than X number of dollars is not okay? Who decides? Do we all vote on how many of our planetary resources each mother is allowed to use to bring a child into the world and to maintain its existence? Do you know how much land each person needs to grow his own food by himself? Do you know how many square miles to keep one chimpanzee alive?
Aren't we going to end up having to fight for it just like that Laird? Every generation has to win its freedom all over again. Isn't that a universal truth?
Aya - moderation is such an easy concept that I'll give you twelve hours to work it out. I'm off to bed now. I'll explain tomorrow, unless you post something to the effect of 'It's OK, I've got it now' Good night :)
Aya - I'm awake again and armed with morning coffee! So, moderation, what is it? Here are some examples:
It is moderate to buy a house and garden of reasonable size in a built up area.
It is immoderate to demand clearance of 100 such properties to make way for your private golf course, even if you can afford it.
In a less populous area, it is moderate to buy a larger acreage provided you do not close public rights of way or otherwise create nuisance.
It is immoderate to buy a vast tract of mountain and moorland and deny access to it.
It is also immoderate to buy a whole portfolio of holiday homes in prime locations which you then keep locked up for 50 weeks in the year.
We were talking about property rights, not children's right to exist. I see no reason to take the discussion there.
But if you want a rule of thumb test for moderate/immoderate behaviour, try this:
If everyone did X could the world's resources stand it?
If the answer is no, then it might still be a reasonable thing to do, but only with the prior agreement of affected parties.
Does that help clear up your difficulty with moderation?
It is moderate to drink a glass of wine with your meal
It is immoderate to be a wino, or drink wine all day long everyday.
It is moderate to have a piece of cheesecake after a meal.
It is immoderate to eat an entire cheesecake every day.
Oh! I just found this on Wikipedia! "Aristotle favoured conciliatory politics dominated by the centre rather than the extremes of great wealth and poverty or the special interests of oligarchs and tyrants." Kartika
Aristotle was a smart cookie. He also gave us logos, pathos & ethos as the three essential ingredients of Rhetoric. We can still learn a lot from these Ancient Greeks.
I'm pretty sure Aya understands moderation as well as anyone. If she didn't, she could have called me an idiot instead of a liberal. (I accept neither label!)
Interesting hub and equally interesting hub comments. Property rights here in the U.S. are sticky issues that can be different not only from state to state, but from county to county. Some that trouble me are:
1. The fact that when you purchase a property, someone else can own the mineral rights beneath your land or even home.
2. That historic properties and even thousand of acres can and are bought every day by investors in foriegn companies and indiviiduals who know nothing about the land or resources or historical value.
3. That natural resources on a property, such as trees, can be slashed and burned or sold for timber, then the property is back on the market to rape what's left of it.
4. That emminent domain can rob people of their homes, such as what happened in New London, Connecticut recently and then the business that was allowed to do that, can skip out on the property for a more favorable property.
5. That HOAs can take on sinister ideas about the property that someone within them owns and cause them to lose their homes.
The more weighty of land ownership problems I'll leave up to you who debate so well -- too much for this old woman. :D
Jerilee Wei, that was an education. I didn't know these things! Thank you - I need to learn more...Kartika
Jerilee, I am very much aware of the destructive power of eminent domain. This is one of the reasons I do not support the building of public roads. If someone wants to build a road, he should pay the asking price for every piece of land he hopes to subjugate to his use. If people who own the land don't consent, he should not be allowed to override their wishes.
Property rights are not a matter of a little versus a lot. The whole point of due process is that whether you have only a little or a lot, your rights are the same.
That's why, Paraglider, I don't buy into moderation. There can be no moderation in the pursuit of justice.
Paraglider,
You write:
"In a less populous area, it is moderate to buy a larger acreage provided you do not close public rights of way or otherwise create nuisance."
But how do you keep the area less populous if you have no right to prevent others from building roads through your land?
Most indigenous peoples suffer precisely when others in great number move into the area, and a doctrine of moderation, as expressed in per capita acreage, requires them to hold less land.
The existence of children is directly related to property rights. If you can't see that, then you are sadly unaware of the facts of life as they are currently playing out. Ask MistyHorizon what it would take for her to have a baby!
"why should one man's property rights impinge on the rights of every one else to pass freely along the beach?"
You're begging the question. By your logic everyone else should have the rights to pass freely through one man's living room. The beach isn't a magical place where we all should have the right to frolic. If you feel that strongly about your beaches, buy one and make it a public park.
BTW, Woodie Guthrie would love the irony in this hub; it preaches socialism and publishes ads. Lovely.
Nicomp has a very good point!
Aya - If you think nicomp's points are good, your judgment is worse than I previously believed.
Aya - public rights of way refer to ancient routes like footpaths, bridleways and drovers' roads. Where these pre-exist, no-one should be allowed to close them. That's all. No-one is suggesting that anyone should be allowed to build roads across someone else's land.
I have no intention of asking MistyHorizon or anyone else such personal questions.
Nicomp - "The beach isn't a magical place where we all should have the right to frolic."
I am sorry you have lost your sense of wonder. That is exactly what the beach is!
Paraglider, I agree. It is personal. I wouldn't ask Misty that, either. But the point I was trying to make you see is that money is personal. Property rights are personal. Letting someone else bathe in the water I intend to drink is personal. Sharing the joy of a day on the beach is also personal!
By using words such as "moderation" and "reasonable", you can't make any of these things any less personal.
The fact that something is personal does not mean that it is no-one else's business. I might want to climb Schiehallion for the view, for the exercise, or, as some do, because it is a holy place. The personal bit is private. The physical bit, walking on the mountain, is not.
No private person should be able to buy the mountain and erect fences, even if he is rich enough.
Similarly, no private walker should be allowed to set fire to the trees, even if he is a fire worshipper.
I am not going to yield the point of moderation. In an ideal world all people would behave moderately. Many do. But as some do not, we need legislation to protect the victims of their excesses.
Paraglider, moderation is intergral to your personal system of ethics. I can see that. Can you see that that system is not universal, but very personal to you? Can you see how wrong it would be to force your values down someone else's throat through the barrel of a gun?
That's what it really comes down to, if you call in government to see to it that your vision of moderation is enforced the world over.
Moderation requires a commitment to the human community and a recognition that one has responsibilities that extend beyond oneself. If I understand Aya correctly (based on previous conversations) I would venture to guess she does not wish to make such a commitment and does not recognize any such responsibility.
Extreme individualism is sociopathic, but people can make it into a virtue if they wish and right now many do. That IMO is the problem.
Aya - my system of ethics does indeed include moderation, as do the ethics promulgated by every major world religion and most major philosophies. Even Hedonism retreated from its own extreme form to a moderated version, leaving in glorious isolation such paragons as the Marquis de Sade.
You are very fond of escalating disagreement to the point of violence - "Can you see how wrong it would be to force your values down someone else's throat through the barrel of a gun?". Whereas all I am proposing is due process of law. If beaches and mountains are designated as common land and not offered for sale, no-one can buy them. Anyone who commandeers common land is in breach of the law and should face the consequences. If society approves some development of such land for the public good, it will not please everyone. But you can never please everyone. That is why we try to move through consensus, not through individual buying power.
Pam - That is well stated. Extreme individualism is indeed sociopathic, or at least it becomes so when powerful individualists ride roughshod over everyone else.
hi Dave, wonderful questions about property owning, I really admire how you are trying to posit some things which are of valid nature, but sometimes the reality is that people just dont care at all and they only think of themselves!
I can see the real attitude of people who really cares like you, they want this world a better place for all of us..
I admire you for that, Always! Maita
Paraglider, you imagine the world with the laws promulgated by you according to your own system of ethics. Your ethics is indeed very similar to that of every major religion. Moderation is the principle behind each of the seven deadly sins. I think that making people feel guilty for every natural drive that allows them to stay alive and to procreate is not a good idea. (But, hey, that's just me.)
Honestly, do you really think that calling me a sociopath is going to win you converts?
I do have a sense of community. I've been looking for a community that will allow me to be me for as long as I can remember. A place where I can be accepted and my contributions can be valued for what they are. I thought I had found it many times, and then had my hopes dashed. One of the problems was misunderstanding. People always judge by their own context and are not willing to shift perspective to see the other person's point of view. Another problem that sometimes comes up is envy. (Not everyone is envious -- just people who think others should not have "too much.")
Here on Hubpages, I was almost driven away by people calling me names, names similar to "sociopath." However, ironically, I discovered the sense of community I was looking for among the people who were trying to make money off their hubs. (I didn't start out identifying with those people, because I write for the joy of the thing.)
Little by little I saw how much kinder and more accepting the money makers really were. They share information freely. They don't feel threatened by others' success. They don't say things like: "It's not fair that one person has 400 hubs and a thousand fans while another person has only ten hubs and two fans." They don't say this, because they realize that the number of hubs we have has something to do with the number of hubs we've created! They don't cater to envy.
Maita - the world used to be a better place in some respects, though not in all. The great shame is that the huge advances we have made in science and technology which should be benefitting everyone, are not doing so, because a relatively small number of people turn everything into a for-profit venture that disproportionately benefits the few at the expense of the many. But we keep trying! Thanks for your support :)
Aya, I said that extreme individualism becomes sociopathic when people ride roughshod over everyone else. As far as I know, you don't do that. I like to think you wouldn't, even if you had the financial clout to do it.
I'm not remotely interested in making people feel guilty. That's a personal emotion that's none of my business. I am interested in finding ways to get people to agree to act moderately, They can think and feel as they like, as long as they don't despoliate the landscape for personal gain.
I don't know why you bring up the envy card? Oh, yes, I do. It's one of the tired old ways of demeaning 'the left'. Let's not confuse envy with justice, shall we?
Paraglider, I'm relieved to know you don't think me a sociopath. But I do in fact believe in "unbridled" individualism. The reason I still talk to you, and not some others with the same view, is that you tend be more courteous.
You may not care what people feel about what you say, but clearly the point of ethics is to alter behavior through labeling certain kinds of acts as immoral and inducing guilt in order to change behavior. We disagree as to which acts are these, because our moralities are not the same. I recognize that morality is a personal matter.
The envy card for me is the same as the moderation card for you! Justice is what we believe to be just. We obviously don't agree on what that is!
Hi paraglide,
I can understand - a bit - why there are people out there who want to grab as much power and wealth as they can; what I don’t get, is why the rest of us put up with it. Maybe people don’t want to rock the boat - but we have to draw the line somewhere. The Founding Fathers knew where to draw the line - it can’t have been easy. And now - after endless struggle - we have the vote to help us deal with that sort of thing.
But this kind of discussion is always helpful.
Aya - since we are being (a little bit) conciliatory, let me explain that I see you more as passionate than extremist, and I made clear that difference in my hub called 'Passionately Moderate'. About passion, I said, "without it there would be no greatness in the Arts or Sciences. But passion does not seek to impose its will on everyone else. Passion does not rush to judgment. The worst you can say of passion is that it may be oblivious to its surroundings, being wholly focused on itself."
I think that describes you fairly well (except perhaps for the rushing to judgnment bit!!!)
Amillar - I think people will not put up with it very much longer, as it begins to filter through, just how much we've all been shafted. That's ALL - middle class, working class, left and right. All but the few at the top, whose lifestyle is genuinely sociopathic (even if the some of the individuals do not realise it). And there's no envy in that remark. I'd hate to be in that number. They are driven by their discontent, always wanting more.
Paraglider, glad we are reconciled. Now to the substance of the matter. Let's say there is a beautiful beach or mountain that we are trying to preserve in its pristine form for future generations. We can ask ourselves what would be the best way to do this. It is a technical problem, and perhaps we can suspend moral judgment for a moment in order to have a rational discussion about practical considerations.
First of all, what are we trying to protect our beautiful location from? Other people. What are we afraid the other people will do? Consume and destroy it. What is the best way to protect the land from people? Deed it to the public and allow them to vote on what will be done with it? The public is greedy. They will want to drill for oil and use the money for "the public good." (In other words, their own good.)
Deed it over to a single individual and don't tax it, and he will use it for his own very small family, keeping all others out. Because the family is small, even if they do pick a few berries or kill a few shellfish, they will not make an environmental impact.
But if you tax it at "current market value" and allow population density to rise, then the individual owner will have to develop it, in order to pay the taxes!
If the problem is that the beach/mountain or whatever will be eroded by too many people and we want to preserve it for future generations, then I can easily suggest a better schema than yours (!)
Fence it off (like your buyer would have done).
Appoint a public official to control access, by prior application, according to an agreed quota system. Allow locals, especially the children, to take the places of non-arrivals.
That way, the beach is not overused and eroded, but lots of people get to enjoy it, instead of one rich absentee landlord. Technical problem solved for the greater good of the greatest number. Next?
Great hub and awesome conversation that followed, Para. Nice work as always.
However (lol... I love u man), you say that “we’re not talking about someone’s living room here" (to paraphrase). But really, aren’t we? Who defines what is “glorious," a beach, mountain, that piece of meadow where they built that guy’s house? Where is the arbitrary line on that continuum? You say the big stuff should allow public access. In concept, that’s great. In reality, not really.
My family owns a large cattle ranch in central California. (Nobody *cough-Pam-cough* jump on me about the Native Americans vs. evil white man thing, try to stay with me here… keep it current). It’s not as pretty as a beach nor as mundane as a living room, but it does have lovely rolling foothills and one particularly cool tableland hill (mesa, table-top hill, pick your term). People want to have access to the property. They want to hunt on it, climb the tableland, fish the creeks, ride motorcycles or horses on it etc. They don’t care about the fact that they drive over the grassland crushing feed, litter on it, start fires, shoot recklessly in the direction of animals or people working, leave gates open that permit mixing of animal populations that should not mix or allow animals to escape onto roads killing animals and possibly people, foul the water and all sorts of other things.
The simple fact is, the public of which you speak may DESIRE access, but as a whole does not have the respect for the land that would make allowing them access to privately held line realistic. The public needs a public services department to follow them around and clean up after them, put out their fires, clean up their blasphemous litter and to treat their injuries when they do foolish things. I’m not saying the public shouldn’t have place to go, but the nice places the public goes are usually not nice for very long.
Shadesbreath, very well put!
Shadesbreath - it's about time you put in an appearance, you old reprobate ;)
Yes, I know exactly what you're describing, but it's not quite the same thing. The thinking consensus would say your people are working a for-profit enterprise that nevertheless is for the public benefit (you're providing food, after all).
The problem with this type of discussion is that absolute positions are very soon shown to be untenable. Then you have to do the difficult thing - decide where you are on the continuum. This is why I keep irritating Aya by harping on about moderation. Because that is how society works.
It also works by respecting the status quo and ensuring changes are incremental and/or consensual. Your people HAVE a ranch (can I visit?). So it should be respected, provided you don't turn it over to hornet breeding or some other antisocial purpose. But if it was virgin land, enjoyed by many locals, it would not be right for someone to commandeer it without public agreement.
Moderation, like pragmatism is hard. That's why people prefer the extreme positions. Why think when you can shout? (Not you, of course, but I'm sure you understand me, even after my third Tuborg Gold.
Goodnight!
Para, you'd be completely welcome. If you ever hit California, shoot me an email and we'll make a point of it!
As for moderation and virgin land, I agree that there is room for moderation and balance. There comes a point in the evolution of a nation/society where this issue comes to the fore. Then you have to have some sort of compromise.
The hot topic in CA right now is water. It's sort of the same thing, except in reverse. The delta and even ground water have been being used a certain way (farming, public use, private use etc.) but the population in the southern desert cities continues to swell and the Greenies keep worrying about these little fish that live in the delta (non-native species but wow the environmental crowd loves them) and so there's a growing movement to revoke mineral/water rights of private land owners so that the unbridled breeding festival in the desert can continue hundreds of miles away from the water sources and food production.
(Bet you can't tell where I stand on that one, eh? lol)
Anyway, I feel that we are going to have moderation forced on us soon (more of it I mean).
Shadesbreath! OMG, I thought you really had become a Shade's breath. :)
Hey it's Thanksgiving (almost). It's my JOB to invoke the Indians here... It's not like I'm living on land they just forfeited. No, I'm in the same boat. Actually, the acre we live on used to be a dump, like, an actual public dump. We just found that out this summer when the neighbors died.
I have a lot of thoughts on this issue that would probably just complicate it and get me all pissed off when Aya weighs in, so I'm hanging back wondering how far to go. I mean, it's one thing if you have a nice ranch in California where the antelopes roam and so forth. I currently STILL have a house just east of Gary IN that NO ONE wants--not the bank, not the city, not me...bums won't even live in it. I could make it into a nature preserve for rats and roaches and investment bankers maybe...
I mean, it does get complicated if you want to make it complicated, which we should--because it IS complicated.
Shadesbreath - if you want to save a little water and power you could always close down Las Vegas (joke). While not rushing to take sides without enough information, I think your example clearly illustrates that the gung ho days are never coming back. (Except here in Qatar where the Emir and relatives have more oil and gas money than they know what to do with and the absolute power to use it exactly as they see fit).
Pam - it IS complicated because everybody has a personal story and an input. You can isolate a topic for the purposes of a 1000 word article, but that doesn't mean the topic stands alone in the real world.
For example, I hinted that inheritance was an issue, but deliberately didn't take it there, because that would have dominated the discussion. Maybe next hub. The point is, the discussion shouldn't stop, and one man's or private ennterprise's wealth shouldn't be allowed to stop it.
As with everything, there must be a balance.
William Bradford, the governor of the original Pilgrim colony, founded at Plymouth in 1621 wrote a diary about the experience. The colony was first organized on a communal basis, as their financiers required. Land was owned in common. The Pilgrims farmed communally, too, following the "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" precept.
After a short time he realized that the communal system encouraged and rewarded waste, laziness and inefficiency, and destroyed individual initiative. People were dying as a result. Desperate, he abolished it. He distributed private plots of land among the surviving Pilgrims, encouraging them to plant early and farm as individuals, not collectively.
They were rewarded with a bountiful early harvest that saved the colonies, and then celebrated with a day of Thanksgiving -- on August 9th.
This became the foundation of the free market system we have here today. I think ledefensetech was referring to this phenomenon and the benefits that arise from it. The story of the guy with the fences on the beach is when those with power lose their perspective, IMHO.
Very thought-provoking nub :)
Madame X - when people agree that there must be a balance there is some chance of a society forming. It's when people think that they have absolute rights limited only by the depth of their pockets that the rot sets in.
Far too many small towns have been destroyed by one big supermarket siphoning all the money to a remote bank account. We are not yet socialised enough as a species to let the 'free market' decide. All the evidence shows that it always takes from the poor and gives to the rich. The free market is destructive of community. Thanks for your contribution. Where is ledefensetech, by the way? I emailed him the details of this hub, but still no sign.
Wow, where to start?
Many of the indigenous people of the world have a concept of land guardianship rather than ownership. Here in NZ it's called being the kaitiaki of the land. Interestingly in Maori the same word also means teacher. The concept of looking after the land and teaching others how to respect it are fundamental to the world view that calls for moderation. We only have one planet and if we are to pass it on to those who follow us we need to moderate both our consumption and our impositions on others. Unbridled individualism, of which the free market is probably the most obvious example in the modern world, cannot take full account of this need for moderation and respect for the rights of others.
I don't deny the need to make a profit nor do I claim that 'property is theft'. What I do say though is that if property and profit become the only reason for dealing with others and we do not moderate our desires, then our communities collapse, our lives are poorer and we run the very real risk of having no world to pass on to our children and grandchildren. kia ora
Well, what is happening here in the rust belt is that, having artificially pumped up housing prices and securitized the shaky mortgages created to help people buy these overpriced houses, the financial sector is now aggressively 'dumping' properties in default on cities by not completing foreclosure or not foreclosing at all.
Millions of homes are 'in limbo'--in default for a year or more, many abandoned, and no one wanting to lay claim to them. The house I lived in when I was in Indiana is like this. I bought it for $39K which was well within my budget but the housing market crashed shortly after I moved to MI for the bank job. So I couldn't sell it. At any price. The mortgage company sent me a letter saying it is worth about $13K but they would like for me to send them $42K immediately. I cannot sell it for $13K or even get a renter in it, but they want more than I paid for it.
On the advice of an attorney I sent them back the keys and explained I cannot sell it, I cannot rent it, I cannot pay for it. It's been over a year and there it sits still, vacant. They don't want it, the city doesn't want it, no one wants it. In reality it is worth less than nothing, as no homes have sold in that neighborhood since well before the crash, not at any price, not even at Sheriff's auction. Winter is coming, the pipes will freeze, that will be the end of the habitability of the place.
Eventually I will get a bill from the city for demolition, if they can find me. They have so many homes like this at the moment they are tad bit backed up at the moment.
This trend is killing industrial cities like Detroit, Flint, Cleveland, and the city I grew up in. So the layers of BS and criminality are very deep in regard to this issue, and no one (including me) takes on the task of restoration. I do not feel I was dealt with in good faith on so many levels that I no longer feel guilty about this mess, but it does make me angry and frustrated.
Property rights seem to favor the already wealthy. That's how it looks to me from where I sit. I know that isn't in the creed of the right, but this is what I see---rape and pillage, move on. That's the formula. I don't admire it.
we have the best quality boots sale online!ugg?timberland arediscounting now,come on ,choose your favorite boots !
nod32,kaspersky!
UGG boots is in Australia during the period of the first world war the rise of the CGM this high-end brand old industrial cities in the United States a small quantity of Pittsburgh, and later production pilot with two pieces of Australia in sheep's clothing parcels into shoes on my feet from the cold, and was then gradually popularity in Australia.
cally2 - guardianship rather than ownership, yes. And it used to be like that even in UK, at least in part, with 'commons' which were literally common grazing land, and similar. My daughter's in-laws in Albania own some olive trees on a hillside, but not the land itself. Anyone can walk there and in fact another family rear turkeys on the same spot, where the trees provide shade. Such schemes have worked before and still work in isolated pockets, but the 'free' market cannot tolerate them. Your second paragraph is a clear call for moderation. Ideally this would be voluntary, but where that is clearly not working we do need controls.
In UK, Kia Ora is a brand of orange juice - what is it really?
Pam - these new wastelands you describe are horrific and it seems no-one takes any responsibility for their creation. Something like this happened in uK in the 80s but on a much smaller scale, and mostly it meant folk were in negative equity for maybe 10 years before they could sell and move on. But the houses remained occupied. This wholesale abandonment of property is something I've not experienced first hand.
Property rights certainly do seem to favour the wealthy. I'm not against reasonable ownership, but we have created an untenably skewed scenario. No sueprise that it is tumbling about our heads.
xdh8 - that's the best piece of spam I've seen for ages. Don't do it again ;)
From my point of view, the most successful societies are those with sound property rights. As far as fences go, the old saying that "good fences make good neighbors" makes sense to me. Of course, access to beaches is generally assured in communities along Lake Michigan, where I am from, and in Florida, where I live. In both, there is a combination of rich folks in fancy houses, and public beaches created and safeguarded by the community. It seems to function quite well. I've never heard anybody complain about it.
I enjoy your thoughtful writing style and your way of presenting questions as much as making statements. That is very effective and was also used by Jesus, as I recall. :)
Hi James - America has more space than UK and so land ownership is less controversial there. Where it goes very wrong is where faceless conglomerates buy up land for whatever ostensible reason but in practice use it to siphon money and resources from the locality to some corporate headquarters (probably offshore). I'm not taking an extreme position on this, merely advocating sensible restrictions, controls and accountability, since it is obvious that the free market is unwilling or unable to restrain its own excesses.
My husband and I stayed in Loch Rannoch this summer and saw the beautiful Mt. Schiehallion every day for a week. The highlands are incredible. My ancestors are Scottish. Where we live in Hawaii, land is very scarce and controversial because of the native Hawaiians. It is always a struggle here and very expensive. You can actually buy a house, but not the land it is on. Aloha!
Elayne - Nice to hear from another Schiehallion fan. I've been there many times, most recently at a family wedding in Kinloch Rannoch. The idea of anyone owning such a place is intuitively wrong. Stewardship is the way to go. Thanks for the Hawaii info. That's somewhere I've yet to visit.
Morning, PG - interesting discussion!
I liked Cally's point - we have a similar system over here, where ancient lands belong to the people, not by deed or covenant, but by convention. There is no need for fences or paperwork - the mountain we have belongs to everybody.
Just a couple of further points:
The idea about 'the people' giving over the land for oil holds no weight. We had a similar situation where a major airline wanted to pay money to set up a plant to bottle the fresh spring water. The villages declined - the people decided that they had no right to sell out the heritage of their descendants. Not everybody is governed by pure greed.
The living room point is also shallow - in and around the village, I often walk through the olive groves, most of which belong to somebody. Nobody cares, as long as I cause no damage. The idea that I would then extend this to demand that I can walk through someone's living room is sidetracking the issue.
There are no absolutes here with property - the Greeks are far too philosophically sophisticated to believe that. :)
Hi PG. I know kia ora is an English orange juice but here in the land of the long white cloud it has several meanings, firstly 'hello', but also 'bless you', 'thank you' and literally 'to life'. I meant the last two or three meanings.
Thanks Sufi - most of the objections so far seem to stem from the idea that land ownership is natural and sacred, and fail to realise that these adjectives have traditionally been applied to the land itself, not to its ownership and exploitation. The living room extrapolation, which I specifically ruled out in the body of the hub was only reintroduced by nicomp as a spoiler. I didn't take it seriously!
cally2 - thanks for the explanation - useful phrase!
Maybe I just don't understand the alternative mentality, which is fair enough - there is always an element of cultural relativism.
I guess that the idea here (and it probably applies to your Albanian family) is that nobody actually owns the land. Although I said 'the people,' for clarity, the land is actually 'unowned' - it has just been that way for thousands of years and nobody has seen fit to question it.
It is a little like the English 'common land,' but that was specifically decreed to set it apart from owned land - they don't even have that particular distinction here. I guess that you could say that the mountain answers to nobody but itself :)
Yes, common land never needed to be defined before the concept of owned land was established. Then it became a rearguard action, to protect the 'commons' from otherwise inevitable takeover.
In Malvern (my home town) the Common is alive and well. The town takes a cutting of hay from it every year, and some years local farmers turn sheep out onto it for grazing. Then, ironically, a few motorists always write to the papers demanding fences - to protect their cars from the sheep! Because it doesn't occur to the poor dears that they could drive a little slower...
This is another interesting hub, but what are we supposed to do - other than discuss? If you complain to that chap with his fenced off beach he’ll just accuse you of being a communist, and say he worked hard for it, and that the rest of us are lazy and feckless; he doesn’t have to listen - so he won’t. He might however, sue you if you write anything libellous - because he has the means.
Last night, I was reading about the ‘land grabs’ in poorer parts of the world, sparked off by the credit crunch. For example, Saudi Arabia wants to buy 700,000 hectares of land in Africa, to be cultivated, no doubt, to fill Saudi bellies (it could also be used to control their own people, perhaps when the oil runs out). You and I might object to being fenced out of our beautiful Scottish hills (looking at the photo is energetic enough for me though - I wouldn’t try paragliding off it). But can you imagine how the African people will feel when they see food they can’t have, grown and then shipped out to people who are already sporting double chins? I suspect when the excrement hit’s the fan, the Saudi Royal Family will say they’re entitled to it all because they work so hard at selling oil (and spawning terrorists).
Discussion helps, but I’m afraid empty bellies aren’t very conducive to moderation.
Amillar - Saudi, Qatar, Abu Dhabi - all are buying real estate around the world as if it were going out of fashion.
i think there will almost inevitably be some form of revolution among people dispossessed by global corporatism. But the supremacists are clever at keeping us at each other's throats, so we don't see what's really happening. That's why I think it is vital to spread awareness, so that there is some chance of the action, when it happens, being focused. The last thing we need is 'low level' civil wars staged as entertainment for the unaffected global 'aristocracy'. Yet that's where all the signs are pointing.
I agree. We should never get too angry with people who have no real influence (including New Labour); I always try to focus on the ones pulling the strings. (Get the organ grinder, never mind his monkeys - the trouble is he’s always hiding behind the monkeys). As you indicate, it’s that old ploy of ‘divide and conquer’, but it’s hard, trying not to play along; I heard somewhere recently, that even during the Crusades, the European bow-makers were selling arms to both sides.
We all see the world from our own perspective. For some it seems, as ready-made by the corporate media, as these ready-made meals you get from the supermarket; made from salt, sugar, grease, and monosodium glutamate (not ideal sustenance for a day at the call-centre). But I find there are some interesting people on the internet, who give me hope - including your good self.
Amillar - I'm glad I'd already eaten tonight before reading your ready meal description. You might have put me off my food! I had a very fresh Thai sea food & spicy basil leaves with sticky rice...
Anyway, yes, the arms merchants never seem to lose.
Jerilee - reading back through all the comments, I find that the detailed response I wrote, point by point, to your excellent comment is nowhere to be seen. I distinctly remember writing it but somehow it seems it didn't 'take'. Apologies, and I hope you didn't feel ignored.
As usual, you miss the point. You've gone out of your way to find a situation that represents your view of how things should be, without looking at the context of your message.
So what if that idiot in Qatar has put up a fence barring people from "his" beach. Does that mean there are not beautiful places that you can visit regardless? A couple of hours from where I live is Busch Wildlife reserve. Not too long after World War II, the Busch family decided to invest in some land that they would hold in trust as a nature preserve. There was no profit for them in this, it was something, however, that they felt strongly about. It's a place where kids from the inner city, many of whom have never been out of the steel and concrete warrens of the city can go to get a different take on life. That's the other part to property rights that you don't seem to understand.
Respect for property rights is not the same thing as fencing off land and throwing everyone off of it. If you could see past your collectivist bias, you'd understand that.
Also what does my work with kids have to do with anything. It's a sad thing when you attack the messenger and not the message and shows how bankrupt your philosophy is.
For Aya et al.
Let's make this as simple as possible for all the advocates of unbridled "personal freedom". I've heard such people say that human rights are non-existent, that the rights of the individual are all that matter. Very well. You can have all the land, wealth and possessions you desire. You may horde them and deny any access to others, but only until I, much wealthier than thou, come along with my personal army and much more might than you can muster. If I want what you have, I will kill or enslave you and take it. I'm just exercising my "personal rights".
You advocate the basic "might makes right" paradigm. Don't dish it out unless you're prepared to take it. You should be prepared to die by the same sword you're so eager to wield.
This has forever been the preferred method of empire builders and simple war lords. There have been variations of course, but the basic process is always the same, conquest. Taking what is desired by main force.
There must be a middle ground, a rational, pragmatic and convivial approach to the equitable distribution of our resources. The fanatic devotion to personal rights over human is the best way to ensure the extinction of our species.
Ledefensetech - it's hard to see how I can miss the point that I am making myself. I think you mean you don't share it. That's no problem.
The Qatari beach example was just that, an example, of what is all too common - selfish acquisition and exclusion, justified by wealth alone. I think, since you call him an idiot, you agree?
Your example of the Busch family closely parallels mine of the John Muir Trust who own and protect Schiehallion for the public benefit. I described that as a success story, so it would appear that I do undertand that aspect of property rights after all - did you miss that?
My 'collectivist bias' is as valid as your 'individualist bias'. The difference would appear to be that I try to be consensual and pragmatic in how I approach socio-political matters.
Finally, I am glad you visited this hub, because indirectly you were involved in its generation. However, I'm truly surprised you think I was attacking 'the messenger'. My mention of your work with children was respectful and complimentary, and for the remainder of the hub I am focused soley on issues, not personalities. If you would prefer that I remove all mention of you from the hub, I will of course do it. You only have to ask.
CWB - That (war, conquest and annexation) is the logical conclusion of pure individualism. The less extreme but almost equally undesirable outcome of intra-national individualism is absence of roads, rail, libraries, hospitals, etc. In other words the absence of society. The logical fallacy is that such things as science, mathematics, technology, even language itself are the very products of socialisation that underpin the 'individual' who claims to be self-reliant. It's an odd world :)
Morning, folks.
LDT - once again, you miss the point in your determination to fit everything into your little ideological box. What we are talking about is moderation and balance, so your remarks about collectivism fall way short of the mark. The systems that we gave examples for - Albania and Greece, work very well, so why change them to suit your one-eyed view of the world?
Paraglider and I see the world in shades of grey, not black and white, so we do not fit into your us vs them, all or nothing mentality. Just because you label us collectivists does not make it so - you are welcome in Greece anytime and perhaps you will see that other nations enjoy personal liberty, too. The US does not have a monopoly on such things!
Humans have been debating this issue since they learned to drive stakes into the ground to make fences. The fact remains that the world needs really wealthy people: their spending and purchasing power makes the financial world go round. Together with their spending habits, we have to put up with their ability to purchase land and put up fences along our walks (how rude!), but I doubt any of us would bat an eyelid if the shoe were on the other foot.
Sufi - I don't object to the collectivist label, only to the intended insult behind it! Collective, if it means anything, means working together, for the common good. Not a lot wrong with that, especially in the light of the total failure of 'trickle-down economics'.
J Rosewater - the financial world is self serving. There is only so much money to go round. The extremely wealthy reach that state by accruing money to themselves. They do not 'produce' that money. And commonly, they do not spend where they 'earn'. This means that their activities greatly skew the distribution of poverty as well as wealth, geographically as well as vertically. As Sufi said, this is an appeal for moderation, not for Utopian egalitarianism.
As for the last sentence, implying that we are all selfish individualists in waiting, I refute that absolutely. There are plenty of example to the contrary.
True, there are examples. Still, it is a sad fact that if it were not those wealthy people blocking the path, it would be others. Of course the financial world is self serving. I agree - if it were not so, there would be more balance. I am a firm believer in moderation, but given the chance, many would leave me to my beliefs and crash ahead, their fence stakes ready to plunge.
That is why we need moderation enshrined in property law, because some people insist on behaving like spoiled children. The fact that we can never achieve absolute equality (which would be pretty boring) should not be used as an excuse to let the free market run rampant. Thanks for your comments :)
Paraglider, ‘The People’ might lease land out to guardianship, rather than ownership. Any old Tom, Dick, or Harry can’t adopt a child; Madonna knows that. The authorities - representing ‘the people’ - want to know what kind of person you are, and how you’ll help with the child’s development. Why not do that with the land?
Ledefensetech, Oliver Twist might applaud your ideas, but in 2009 why should ‘the people’, leave so much to the whims of the individual?
Why not indeed? At the very least, I can see no good reason not to have regular 'reviews' of land usage. After all, we do that with vehicles - if it's not road-worthy, mend it. The authorities don't get everything right of course, but that's the fault of public negligence. We should be more vigilant towards our 'public servants'. The idea that a hardworking 'deserving' person can just give a huge lump of the country to a feckless wastrel of an offspring (as has happened uncountable times) is patent nonsense. But we've condoned it for a thousand years.
It's fairly simple actually. We can learn to live and work together in a civil society or we can revert to tribal warfare, every man for himself and the last one standing is the winner.
In spite of all I see and hear, I still hold to hope for the former.
Nice hub and I agree with the sentiment.
Somewhat off the subject. That Woodie Guthrie clip at the end led me over to youtube as I fancied hearing a bit more of woodie. That led me to his version of House of the Rising Sun. That led me to Nina Simone's version of House of the Rising Sun (it was before the animals). And that led me to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUcXI2BIUOQ&feature
which is such a moving, yet uplifting performance I'd never seen before. Surfing the web is like following a train of thought. You never know where it's going to take you. I liked where that train took me, and I just wanted to share that good fortune which started from here.
CWB - in fact civil societies have worked quite well in various places around the globe. But with globalised economies the playground has become too big and no-one has yet learned how to control the bullies. I also hope that reason will prevail in time.
Don W - Thanks for that link. I've not seen that version either. Cant remember whose version made it as a uk hit, but that's the one I remember from way back then.
Para - what a great Hub, as usual!
Here on the southern tip of Africa the clash between collectivist and individualist ethics is as harsh as anywhere. In neighbouring Zimbabwe huge fuss is made of the "land-grabs" by Mugabe supporters, completely forgetting that the white-owned (maybe that be be "owned" in inverted commas) farms were taken by force in the first place, the white settlers grabbed the land by force, bribery and all sorts of corruption. Not that I am in favour of Mugabe's henchmen's methods of re-taking the land - that is a different question altogether. But the whites "owned" that land because of treacherous, double-dealing colonisalist expansion. Basically the indigenous folk were robbed by the "good, Christian" colonialists who operated with the explicit approval of the "good, Christian" Cecil John Rhodes. Money and guns, lots of them, and liquor, even more of it, were involved in the theft of the previously commonly held land of the Zimbabweans of the 19th Century. So for the West to get all huffy about Zimbabweans taking back their land is hypocritical to say the least. Again let me state that I do not condone, nor agree with in any way, the brutal ways in which the land has been re-taken, but let's recognise at least the historical issues involved. Also the new elite in Zimbabwe have done what similar property owners everywhere have done - thrown the people who worked for the white farmers off "their" land and so the ordinary people are left as badly off as before - all in the name of property rights. But enough of that.
Here further south most of us whites live on land previously in the communal ownership of the indigenous people. It has beenh for centuries now so how to put right such an old injustice is a hot debate. But it is complicated by the newly-rich black elite behaving as rapaciously as the previous white elite. It becomes extremely complicated.
The need for an ethic of moderation is great, because the ordinary folk are being shafted and I don't think they are going to take it lying down much longer - I think South Africa is heading towards a new revolution sparked by the fact that it is the most unequal society in the world, as measured by the Gini co-efficient. So it's not just a matter of perceptions, but of cold statistical fact.
I like the concept of stewardship, although it tends to have certain religious connotations. But we are all stewards of the resources which the good earth provides - we need to make the best use of them, which means sharing them in some equitable way.
One slight carp about moderation though is that I will not be moderate in my condemnation of racism, for example. I will call it the evil I believe it to be. I have seen its workings, its effect on people and so I will not be moderate in condemning it. Likewise war and violence. I can't be moderate towards them!
Thanks for sparking such a great debate, as usual.
Love and peace
Tony
Tony - thanks for painting that picture in such detail. The land ownership issues are pretty well understood, if not exactly enjoyed, in all the old countries. The US seems to have at least a few people in denial, apparently believing that the land they 'own' was not stolen, no doubt on the grounds that the previous owners were not civilised enough to deserve to own the land.
Of course, these previous 'owners' weren't owners at all; they were custodians. They had no concept of owning land. They were possibly right in that perspective.
Similarly, the land in Zimbabwe was 'common', as you say. No-one likes Mugabe's regime, but our own forefathers did not behave a lot better than he does.
Anyone who thinks this is simple, is simple ;)
Well Paraglider (aka D:) this was one of, if not the, very best articles I've read on HubPages thus far. You clearly have a more magnanimous view on the world than I thought at first, and your language (like the few Scots I've met in my life) is clever and robust. It makes me wonder if there are lots of vitamins in the water in those locks!
Here's a point to ponder regarding property rights. Just as you pointed out about the John Muir group preserving one of your country's mountains well, so are many areas preserved in my country, here in the States. One of the overlooked success stories of the Obama Administration is that they have further legislated a million more acres in reserves.
I am completely in agreement with your take that people who can afford to buy land, also buy into the stewardship of that land. I used to think that most land should be bought up by the state and preserved, but after seeing how well some private owners preserve their land I see that the private side merits value as well. For example, my Native American tribal kin has done it's best to hold onto what little lands we have left, but state interests still trump treaty rights any time a corporation catches wind of mine-able metals or minerals, that land is ravaged for it's bottomline value.
On an island like Scotland I completely sympathize with the resentment of the elite excluding people from vast tracts of limited space. I fear I've diluted my point, ha! Mainly though, I think property rights on islands especially heavily populated ones, promotes a stricter sense of value per square acre, or I think you guys call them hectares?
Anyway, great read, your writing is superb.
Na Astrovia.
Ben
Ben - we had acres for centuries, before the hectare was first coined! America is a young country (if and only if you go along with the theory of conqueror's rights!) But as most Americans take that as read, it is still a young, big country. Many of the prevalent views there are based on the idea of 'virgin land', something that probably existed in UK about 1500 years ago, but not since.
My bottom line is not forced redistribution within a lifetime - it is gradual leveling of the Global playing field, something that might take 250 years, but has to be done, to avoid catastrophe.
Thanks for your interest :)
This is another very good hub. I agree with you. Thanks Paraglider.
Micky - maybe someday we'll see the land return to the people. Thanks for the visit :)
The only way is to get strand on an island, where nobody lives. Other than that, I can't see how it is possible. I just hope that governments stop asking us to pay property tax. After all, they don't create the land.
Scheng - a start would be a system that disallowed buying land 'in perpetuity' for descendants. But just because nothing's easy doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
I like how you think Paraglider, I always have. Very well thought out, you helped us personalize very deep subjects. It's funny how rights are important when they affect us, and less important when they affect others. LOL
Food for thought and I had a feast at your writer's table!
Hi Marisue - thanks for finding this oldie. You've reminded me that I had intended a follow up hub on inheritance. Maybe today..
How I burn in anger when back in Jersey,Channel Isles,walking along the beach, we all have to turn back cause some millionaire has 'bought' a piece of the beach! So infuriating.
Seem to remember something about 'Madonna' chasing people from land-right of way for centuries for ramblers.
Good interesting read,jandee
Hi jandee - I agree. I don't understand why we have allowed the selfish behaviour of the few to dominate the lives of the many.
kartika damon Level 2 Commenter 2 years ago
I've always felt it is wrong for people of wealtth to be able to purchase the natural resources that should belong to everyone. I imagine these beachfronts and other places as like national parks that are kept clean and preserved and made available to all people to enjoy! Kartika