Is land ownership a birth right?

Yup. That's the idea I'm floating in this thread.

Oh, had no idea where to put this one, potentially philosophy but maybe political madness I mean who knows.

Let's explore the idea of land ownership.

Wikisource

IT has been asserted that nothing is so devoid of natural justice and moral right as private ownership in land—the sole dominion over a portion of the earth's surface which one man claims and exercises to the exclusion of the dominion of every other man therein. The proposition would be true, and private ownership in land would work the greatest injustice that the mind can conceive—human slavery absolute—if it were possible that one man or a set of men with one common motive could appropriate all land. But such a thing is absurd. And it is denied that private ownership in land as now constituted is unjust, or detrimental to the best interests of mankind associated in the social organization of the world.

Let us assume that primarily land was held in common, or a yet stronger proposition, that it is a law of nature that all land shall be so owned and enjoyed. By the same law of nature, and by reason, he who first began to use a particular spot or field acquired therein a kind of transient property that lasted so long as he was using it. The right to use it lasted so long as possession continued, and with death or removal, possession ceasing, the personal right of usage ceased also, and the land was open to the next occupant. That is, whoever was in occupation acquired for the time being a sort of ownership, a guasi-ownership for the purpose of subsistence, or rest if you please, and to drive him therefrom by force would be a violation of the same law of nature. But once he quitted it, another, having the same right of use and an equal claim to occupancy, might seize it without injustice. Applying this system to an imaginary or ideal state, to men having a common interest and few wants, and those supplied from nature by the simpler forms of industry, the result is a picture of comfort and competence for every one of the community; in fact, an extensive household, with its respected father or chief, around whom cluster the helpless and inexperienced.

This is essentially a natural law argument about land ownership and property rights. One of my favorite natural law advocates is Mark Passio. Some of you have heard his perspective and some of you may agree with it.

So, make your argument.

I say micronations should be an obtainable thing, at least.

Now a days no, that ship has sailed so to speak.

Once upon a time yes it was once you buy it its yours, now we just rent it as long as someone is willing to pay the taxes.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Oh, maybe I didn't clarify my argument.

If you read the source material you may have a better idea but what I am saying is that are humans entitled to land ownership simply as a birth right?

Imagine if land ownership exist as stated in the article I linked? Based on if you are using it or not... there would be tons of land for sale

people would also have more of a stake in what's happening around them as well

It's a matter of the culture, not something intrinsic. If the culture says you have a birth right, you do. If the culture says there is no such thing, then it's a fantasy. No rocket science necessary.

originally posted by: schuyler
It's a matter of the culture, not something intrinsic. If the culture says you have a birth right, you do. If the culture says there is no such thing, then it's a fantasy. No rocket science necessary.

That's an interesting perspective for sure.

But what do you actually think?

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: schuyler
It's a matter of the culture, not something intrinsic. If the culture says you have a birth right, you do. If the culture says there is no such thing, then it's a fantasy. No rocket science necessary.

That's an interesting perspective for sure.

But what do you actually think?

I just told you.

Just like anything you think you own, possessions actually own you. That includes land. You have to work your entire life to maintain something you percieve to own and when you are gone someone else assumes the roll you occupied. Who actually owns anything? It is just a temporary domain.

a reply to: CharlesT

I agree, the entire idea is ridiculous and doesn't fit into this persons point of view on natural law and land tenure.

a reply to: toysforadults

Get off my lawn!

a reply to: toysforadults

But land ownership, in the USA at least, is one of the tenants of a viable Republic. And rightly so.There are three main Founding-era economic policy principles that make possible sufficient production, for rich and poor alike, of the goods that are needed for life and the pursuit of happiness.

The first principle is private ownership. Government must define who owns what, allow property to be used as each owner deems best, encourage widespread ownership among citizens, and protect property against infringements by others, including unjust infringement by government itself.

The second principle of sound policy is market freedom. With some exceptions, everyone must be free to sell anything to anyone at any time or place at any mutually agreeable price. Government must define and enforce contracts. Means of transportation must be available to all on the same terms.

The third principle is reliable money. To facilitate market transactions, there must be a medium of exchange whose value is reasonably constant and certain.

Explained in detail here

Now the left has several issues with the founding father's views on the economics of the USA, mostly because their push is towards a more authoritarian (and, to be honest tyrannical) means of running the society. Which makes sense.. Marx, after all, pointed out that " The starting point of the socialist movement is the creation of conditions for the public ownership of the means of production". (Read Marx' "Capital" for more on the subject)

The founding fathers had a definite idea about private property rights.

“To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association–‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'” –Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy’s “Political Economy,” 1816.

Take away that right and you might as well take all the others.

“Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.”–John Adams, 1787.

This was one of the ideals of setting up a democratic Republic, after all.

“The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

And NOT a founding father, but he still had some ideas on the subject....

“Property is the fruit of labor…property is desirable…is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”–Abraham Lincoln, March 21, 1864.

Private ownership of land and the means to pass that on IS a natural right.

Take away that and you no longer have a US of A.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

A very creative guy, cool.

a reply to: toysforadults

Can't think of any reason why a person should not be allowed to settle on any unused land, other than some land that is protected specifically for conservation purposes.
What the heck is "Crown land" anyways?

First Nations folk believed that we all belong to Mother Earth, and the concept of a man owning a piece of land was ridiculous to them.

a reply to: Lumenari

One of the better post's I've seen in a while. Well done!

No man actually has the right to own land. The earth is not ours to own. We may think we owe land, but we don't really own it, people are delusional, we can use it like all other life on earth does.

Before Europeans came to North America, the Indians knew you cannot own the land, they are actually correct. We have no right to own it.

originally posted by: rickymouse
No man actually has the right to own land. The earth is not ours to own. We may think we owe land, but we don't really own it, people are delusional, we can use it like all other life on earth does.

Before Europeans came to North America, the Indians knew you cannot own the land, they are actually correct. We have no right to own it.

And yet we can and do in the US. You saying that we have no right to own land just shows that you do not understand the concept.

That's OK, you are allowed an opinion. In fact, because of our Constitution you are allowed to post that thought on this forum. Without people coming to your house and killing everyone because your opinion differs from the actual laws of the nation you live in. You know, like other places on the planet.

I will point out though that you are wrong, in the legal, moral and ethical sense of the word. See my post above this.

As far as the "Native Americans are spiritual warriors that are one with the planet" crap, check yourself and read up on Native American history. You don't speak for me. I am an Indian. We fought for thousands of years before the Europeans came. We slaughtered whole tribes, enslaved others. For territory. Land. Do you not think that is the same thing?

Take the time to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. There were better minds than yours (and mine) sorting the concept out. A concept that is a lot older than the USA. The way to make more people have more freedoms than ever before possible in the history of the world.

This is the actual legacy of our founding fathers, the thing they took on an empire for... the thing they risked everything for, died for. So that we could have the chance to change our stars, as it were.

I at one time pledged my life for that, because I believed in it. I still do.

It is sad that our society had decayed to the point that there are people that no longer believe that, people that listen to the pied piper of progressivism. The people who will promise you the stars, as long as you let them have control of them. And you.

I take heart in the fact that times are changing.

originally posted by: Foreshadow
a reply to: Lumenari

One of the better post's I've seen in a while. Well done!

Thank you... the issue of private property ownership is a key issue in what makes our nation work. The other two economic ideals that the founders put in place have been badly eroded over time, but property ownership is the last bulwark between what they envisioned and the slide into socialism.

It is important that people understand that.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: rickymouse
No man actually has the right to own land. The earth is not ours to own. We may think we owe land, but we don't really own it, people are delusional, we can use it like all other life on earth does.

Before Europeans came to North America, the Indians knew you cannot own the land, they are actually correct. We have no right to own it.

And yet we can and do in the US. You saying that we have no right to own land just shows that you do not understand the concept.

That's OK, you are allowed an opinion. In fact, because of our Constitution you are allowed to post that thought on this forum. Without people coming to your house and killing everyone because your opinion differs from the actual laws of the nation you live in. You know, like other places on the planet.

I will point out though that you are wrong, in the legal, moral and ethical sense of the word. See my post above this.

As far as the "Native Americans are spiritual warriors that are one with the planet" crap, check yourself and read up on Native American history. You don't speak for me. I am an Indian. We fought for thousands of years before the Europeans came. We slaughtered whole tribes, enslaved others. For territory. Land. Do you not think that is the same thing?

Take the time to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. There were better minds than yours (and mine) sorting the concept out. A concept that is a lot older than the USA. The way to make more people have more freedoms than ever before possible in the history of the world.

This is the actual legacy of our founding fathers, the thing they took on an empire for... the thing they risked everything for, died for. So that we could have the chance to change our stars, as it were.

I at one time pledged my life for that, because I believed in it. I still do.

It is sad that our society had decayed to the point that there are people that no longer believe that, people that listen to the pied piper of progressivism. The people who will promise you the stars, as long as you let them have control of them. And you.

I take heart in the fact that times are changing.

So who or what gave mankind the right to seize power over this planet? If people say god, then my answer would be he kicked us out of the garden of eden for messing it up, so why would he let us make claim to the earth?

a reply to: rickymouse

So who or what gave mankind the right to seize power over this planet? If people say god, then my answer would be he kicked us out of the garden of eden for messing it up, so why would he let us make claim to the earth?

I have made my point and it isn't about mankind having the right to seize power over anything.

It is the natural right of a human being to hold property, a means to feed himself and family, the right to a home and the means to protect himself and his property.

There is no power there to seize. It just is the natural order of things.

Unless you want to argue that a bird has no right to seize power to make a nest? To have a territory that it defends, a place where it and it's mate can use to feed the family?

That a wolf has no right to seize power and make a den, a pack, a territory that it uses to feed their young and themselves? And of course the right to defend it from other packs, other predators?

This is just a natural law. Humans are part of nature.

Now, a good government is put in place to not only allow that for humans, but to also protect that right.

A bad government takes that right and gives it to ones they choose.

This is a very simple concept and I don't think I should take the time to go any further on it.

You have an opinion. I can demonstrate that it is wrong in every single way using examples of pretty much any other organism on the planet. I will leave it at that.

South Africa is using the tribal ethic to claim land in the name of the Republic.
Everybody understand?
Me neither.