a discussion me and a friend had about it:
Him: People value land in different ways. Some people value common property and treat it well, but many people want to know that the time and effort they invest in a given parcel will benefit them long term and will be theirs no matter what. By allowing people to own the land they use or live on, they have an incentive to keep the property up or improve it. Of course there are exceptions, like investors or people who value property in a way that's destructive, like to extract mineral resources or clear cutting forests. But I think that's more an issue of excessive and concentrated wealth and lack or regulation, then the ability to own land itself. There is also the issue of the tragedy of the commons which is outlined in the above article.
Me: "many people want to know that the time and effort they invest in a given parcel will benefit them long term and will be theirs no matter what" - there's plenty of projects to put this rather ego-driven motivation into other than land, and there's already much more primary incentives to keep land up beyond just this motivation, the biggest of which is long term survival. Other guiding principles such as justice, human empowerment and economic efficiency are good for the public BEFORE the individual. Taking control of public land as one's own to satisfy this desire you bring up doesn't seem ethical to me, unless it's serving the PUBLIC as well because land isn't anyone's originally. Tribal and earliest agricultural societies exhibited this understanding that there are legitimate interests for EVERYONE involved (immediate user of the land - household or business, the local community, the planetary community, future generations, etc) when it comes to messing with land
"Of course there are exceptions, like investors or people who value property in a way that's destructive, like to extract mineral resources or clear cutting forests. But I think that's more an issue of excessive and concentrated wealth and lack or regulation, then the ability to own land itself." How then, can we bring about the change necessary to increase regulation without giving the government too much power? I agree we don't regulate enough and I'd love to hear possible solutions that are within our current governmental paradigm, but at my current understanding, it seems to me that vast concentrations of wealth and land are inevitable in any system that operates on the common understanding of private ownership like we do
The direction that this article points out, to rethink WHO should have what rights when it comes to property seems way more promising to me than increasing regulation to any centralized government (since the problem is concentration of power, that's just concentrating power still! and to people who are so far removed from whatever community in question, that decisions that are made tend to take on different, more questionable interests (profit, politics) than those of the people they actually affect). If you read on in the article it lists those interests and discusses community land trusts
as for the tragedy of commons... "The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest" - INDEPENDENTLY and SELF-INTEREST is the thing that has to be given, and once again, that's exactly a product of our current understanding of private property and the things that this article suggests solutions for
|