Off Topic Political Debate

I agree that the move from hunter gatherer to agriculture was the shift towards a society based on civil law (although nomadic and semi nomadic peoples also sometimes had a highly refined system of laws. The nature of property is not however contained within the word 'civilization'. Property could be a case of everything being owned by the King and then leased out to his subjects. It could be collectively owned at the grass roots level, state owned or owned by private individuals - it does not make any difference to the use of the epithet 'civilized' which form of ownership we are discussing. Also we need to differentiate between 'property' and 'possessions'.

 

You could also say that civil society began when someone (or a group of people) put a fence around a field and said 'this belongs to me/us - and others were gullible enough to believe it. Nearly all property began in this way , and so, initially, with theft.

 

Theft is when you take something that belongs to someone else - by your definition the land did not previously belong to anybody so could not be theft. Making good use of something that is not doing anything else is actually very positive

Furthermore without possessing land nobody could be expected to work it - therefore possession of land is a necessary requirement for a society to move beyond hunter gathering.

 

I would actually disagree here Leo....surprise , surprise
But we are debating about something here which is so lost in the depths of time that it would be difficult to arrive at any conclusions. You say that nobody could be expected to work on land which did not belong to anyone - historical research appears to contradict this. There were intermediate stages between hunter-gatherer and farmer such as semi nomadic groups which did work the land on a seasonal basis but then left it for other land - without the question of possession ever arising. All land is also not of the same value (at least when seen from an agricultural perspective) and so when a man (or men) takes control of a piece of the best land and says 'this belongs to me/us alone' then the justification of this claim was based only on strength of arms - if the following consequence was that other people were 'locked out' in a barren wilderness by no other virtue than being less well armed then yes - this was a form of theft. I contend that most land possession started in this way. Also, if you delve more deeply into our friend Chief Seattle's philosophy the land belonged to itself !
Also - if you adhere to the ideas of some of the people I have quoted from - Winstanley in particular, then you would come across phrases like 'The World as a common treasury for all mankind' which would denote all private possession of land as 'theft'. I fall somewhere between him and Chief Seattle - difficult to argue with I know ! However the 'Realpolitik' in me moderates this a little and would say yes I accept your possession but only under certain circumstances - namely that you leave the land in a better environmental condition than that in which you found it - this being seldom the case.

 

I think it is worth labouring this point Cologne as if we can build a foundation then we can move on and build a civilisation ( I used to like Sid Meier's Civilisation )

Saying the land belonged to itself is sort of futile - yes and beasts belong to themselves so we cannot eat them and hey who said you could eat nuts or berries either.

There is no need to go back to pre-history. To grow food somebody or some body has to be able to have unique access to that land and prevent others from walking over it or taking the produce it produces. Now whether that is on a short term basis before "moving on" or on a long term basis is only a matter of degree. Rule of force is one way of ensuring that unique access - but rule of law is better. Can we both accept this so far?

 

Unfortunately Leo thus far I have to agree. Whilst my previous life might have been a sort of Shamanistic existence with Sitting Bull, I am now a member of so called 'civilized' society. I confess to having a small piece of land of about 5,000 sq. metres (Near Engelskirchen not in Cologne!) which I use for vegetables, fruit and chickens so..I have no other choice but to agree ! However - half of our land is given over to insects and all those other species which are under threat in our industrialized landscape - in other words half is wild. But this would also be possible in a rented property, or possible also with some kind of communal possession - which, in ideal circumstances, I would prefer. However for me ownership is more like stewardship in as much as I see us as only 'looking after' this land for a few years. It does not belong to me in the sense that I can do with it what I want - because I am not simultaneously the owner of every earthworm, bee etc. that comes onto this land (athough I do protect it from Wild Boar !). I also make a distinction between 'possessions' and 'property' in as much as my watch is my own - but I would prefer for it to be produced by a local workers cooperative. In a sense the Quaker maxim is the best one - take from the World what you need in order to live - one penny more is theft.

 

OK - totally respect that you have "values" that you put upon land "ownership" and as it happens I like them - but am not sure that matters.

You cannot rent land unless someone owns it and communal possession is also land ownership - I think therefore we both have to agree - however reluctantly that land ownership is a necessary feature of anything other than a hunter gatherer society.
Given that we are all mortal we can only ever have stewardship over land - looking after it for a few years.

If land "ownership" is essential for land to be worked then rules - laws - are necessary in a crowded society to govern that possession. Although I understand your distinction between "possession", "property" and perhaps "ownership" they all need to be governed by property laws.

Easy so far I think really but it will be the next step where I suspect people can diverge.

A person is granted under the law the right to use land. This cannot be termed as theft as it is a pre-requisite for a non hunter gatherer society. Should those laws stipulate what he can do with that land and whether he has the right to pass that land on to others?

 

I cannot place a sign before my house which says 'Germany ends here, please have your passport ready' - although sometimes I would like to. It is not a case of the state vs. private property because private property exists only because of the state. Therefore the state has the right to make some restrictions on how I use my property - depending on the type of property (and the amount of it). Doubtless if I own a book then I can dispose of it as I wish - but land is something different because everything I do to it has an environmental impact on nature and on other people. If I dig up a part of my garden and grow potatoes on it I consider this nobodies business but my own - if I start digging up 30 year old hedges which are home to hundreds of insects and birds to build a carport then that is something different, as it would be if I felled a 200 year old tree because I wanted a better view. The state (in form from the Commune) has the right to intervene in environmental issues. The case would be the same if the exercise of my freedoms restricted those of others - if I, for example, insisted upon burning tyres in my garden close to the neighbours fence - then I would expect him to have legal redress. Nobody likes to be subject to laws which are made anonimously 500 miles away - I would prefer powers delegated downwards so far that decisions are made as close as possible to the people effected by them.

I would like to live in a country where there was an upper limit on land ownership - and also in which special laws exist for second home ownership. I have seen the effects of the latter on Exmoor (where I lived for a long time) - it forced house prices up out of the reach of local people and the local infrastructure died as a result. People who buy second houses should be compelled to live in them for so many months in the year. I also would like to see a cap placed on house prices and rentals - thereby further interfering with the concept of 'free' ownership

In the case of collectively owned land (Communism from below). That is a society based upon small communities where the power of the state has become reduced to a purely administrative function. There the problem is one of cohesion - ie. someone must have an overview from above. If my commune is growing only one product and the rest of the country does not need this - then some sort of intervention from above must be possible. But this would be through permanent dialogue and not command structures.

Inheritance is a difficult one Leo - theoretically I am against private inheritance of land. But realistically I would prefer to see inheritance taxes paid in form of land rather than money, thereby slowly and gradually increasing the ratio of public to private land. I would also give the Commune (municipality ?) the right to requisition land or buildings which have not been used for a number of years.

 

You have jumped here from a simple agreement that land ownership is necessary and not theft to a whole raft of things that you personally like but others may or may not agree with.

I am trying to see if we can build from the bottom to see at which point there is more or less common agreement to a point where our individual values take over.

We have established that land can and should be owned in order for it to be used effectively - but now need to see if the owner should expect to be able to pass on to his heirs the fruits of his hard work. Long before we need to see why nations exist.

Let me put forward a view for you to agree with or shoot down. If someone has spent their whole life working on land to improve its condition and fertility and has created a "nice" farm let us say, then on his death who should get it - his son ( I am using the male gender here only for simplicity) or as he only is a temporary "caretaker" of the land should he not be able to pass it on?

 

In that case then Lenny, if the son has no right to inherit that land, who does and who decides who does? Just a short step to the Russia and China of old....what this is all negated by is the natural greediness and desire for power in man.

 

Sorry Leo but the 'whole raft of things' was an answer to your first question about whether those laws should stipulate what a person can do with his land - I tried to cover as many legitimate areas of state involvement to cover different situations.
As for the inheritance question I must say that I am not against all inheritance. However, ultimately both Capital and Land, the raw materials of labour, should cease to be transferable through inheritance. Having said that, a great deal depends upon the size of inheritance concerned - and I had already stated that I am in favour of a cap to the extent of private land ownership - so if the farm comes within that limit then no problem.
If however the inheritance is so substantial that it opens up to heirs the possibility of living without working ie. through levying upon collective labour, through rent or interest then my opinion changes.
I know that my ideas here are likely to produce strong opposition - but I am describing a 'dream' which I know can probably never materialize. More practical was the last suggestion in my last post, namely that inheritance taxes are paid in form of land - thus slowly reducing the ratio of private to public land, and avoiding intense hardships to any one individual.

 

Sorry but there is no natural greed or desire for power in man. These are socially produced elements not found in some so called uncivilized cultures.

 

Sorry Cologne for going so slowly but I am trying to test the logic of all of this as we go along so the jump to nation states was for a while a step too far - I hope this is not boring for you - I can sypathise with some of your views but am interested to know where exactly we diverge.

I need to think about the logic that says we can own land and pass it on to others but only if it fits within a certain size box. Once you go there then I don't think you can argue agaiinst someone who believes the box should be larger. I need to think before I come back to you on this.

I also am not sure that animals - including man - do not show a natural greed or desire for power - in fact I think "pecking orders" seem to be the norm in the animal kingdom from which we have emerged - but the whole point of laws is to restrain and curb that natural instinct if it is there

 

Whilst you're thinking Leo look up Darwin vs Kropotkin or rather competition vs cooperation - those individuals and species which have practiced the latter of those two ie. cooperation have been those which have survived the best. There are no loners in nature.

 

Sorry cologne but I think you are wrong. Children have a desire to own the latest phone, the proper trainers, the latest video game. Children here are not allowed to take phones to school, not because they might be a distraction, but because they could be used to show that one has a better phone than another. You might well say, and I would agree that all these must have things are the result of advertising, but having seen one person with the latest piece of technology another would desire to have it. If when you talk about uncivilized cultures you mean a tribe living in the Amazon jungle, well they have not been exposed to modern civilization with the pressures to own material goods.

As someone who is never up to date with the modern way of living I don't ignore what is going on, it is just later getting to me. I am lucky enough to own some land and love improving and altering it to suit my vision. I doubt that I will ever be completely satisfied with what I am doing, but the fact I have the chance to do it, taking into account wildlife as you do, is a great privilege. However none of it would be possible unless I had been able to buy it from the previous owner who had inherited it from his parents. I believe we cannot live in some sort of time warp, we have to try and make our little bit of the world better for those around us in the current situation.

 

I can't disagree with the second part Frenchie and wish you lots of fun with improving and altering it - remember the bees and the squirrels etc. have a right there (not the wild boar though!) and that's o.k. As for the first paragraph, those children learn, like German kids, that 'to have' is good - to acquire is good - they learn it subconsciously from their parents at an early age.....and what can be learned in this way can also be learned in another way namely to share. I do not think I am turning the clock back, because in the small hamlet where I live we have realized that it is not necessary for everyone of us to have the latest tool for this or that, but enough for one of us to have it - in this way we can share nearly all the tools we need. When will people realize that 'community' is the most essential feature of a high standard of living - sharing is fun, and it brings people together.

 

I can't disagree that sharing is the ultimate objective and as per the boblical saying it is more blessed to give than receive nut... I believe it's human nature to need to be able to give from a position of relative privilige and there is an alpha male desire to dominate ones surroundings and once that domination is achieved comes benevolence. I don't think you can have a benevolent society without first creating the differences in relative wealth. Indeed I have a theory that the reason for stress in modern society is that we have rules and laws suppressing our desire to dominate through our natural physical superiority, this leads to internal psychological conflict in the male of the species.
I haven't seen a model of community land ownership that has worked, it always seems to end in confiscation and subsequent reallocation to a new elite tending to indicate that whatever the stated ideology followed the end result is always that the dominant emotion of greed takes over in every society.

 

Maybe we are closer than you think as my hamlet works very much on the same lines. It has given me great pleasure to have a new neighbour who wants to be a part of it rather than the previous one who didn't want to speak to anyone. I do think though that having use of some modern tools rather than trying to do things in the old traditional ways is to everyone's benefit and when I need something I research it before buying it. My parents would not have even known that some of the tools available to us today even existed, so what I have bought has not been through pressure from outside influence, but knowledge that they do exist and might be to my advantage to own. Some jobs that took a week now can be done in a couple of hours. Of course when I do buy something new I am happy to lend it out, although because of the age of some it often means sharing some time as well.

All of this grass roots cooperation is great if you share in it, but there are things around at national level when it has little influence. Mr. Hollande now holds the record for the lowest ever rating of approval according to today's news. His economic policies have miserably failed and he is far too late in changing his approach to cutting back on spending. At the same time he has stopped delivery of warships to Russia due to their actions. That could cost the country billions of euros, and some people are saying that the money could have been spent on social actions regardless of the principles involved. People who could do with some help, often in the large cities and now in the yards that build ships , will not have it, and unlike you or me cannot retire to our bit of land and grow some vegetables. It is far too easy to view the world from our little bit of it, but much harder to see what those without our luck make of it.

 

Does that include the sharing of the computer you are using? Or is that under the line you draw?

You say that so-called "uncivilised"peoples do not exhibit such traits as greed and a lust for power, I disagree. They have tribal leaders that would fight to stay in power as is the same in the animal world and I suspect there is theft amongst them. Just because they might not hanker for the trappings of the modern "world", probably because they have no exposure to them, does not mean they hanker for the trappings of their world.