posted on May, 31 2015 @ 03:37 PM
Hi Darkbake, thought-provoking question you raise... s&f for you
I have asked myself this question in one form or another many times.
The best answer I have come up with so far is, I think individual property rights are about as natural as holding the land "in common", IMHO. Either
method of dealing with land (and the resources on it/in it/under it) makes as much sense as the other in the long run.
The reason I answer thusly... even when the land is held "in common", the question still exists "in common to whom?" If the piece of land you live
on has wild game, and the piece of land I live on has fertile fields, isn't it still in the best interest of all of us if you harvest some extra game
and trade it to me for some of the surplus grain that grows over here?
What if another "tribe" moves into our sphere, increasing the demand on the resources in our area? Do we invite them in? Do we chase them away?
If we chase them away, are we really holding the land "in common"? If we invite them in, are we dooming us all because we have exceeded the carrying
capacity of the land?
And either way, once we live out our allotted physical lifetimes, it's up to the next generation(s) to rethink the question for themselves, isn't
I think I have asked more questions, rather than answered anything... curious what your reply to some of those questions would be, if you have a