Is land ownership a birth right?

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

I certainly do.

Bad governance.

Land ownership isn't a birthright, but if you buy the land or are inherited it, then you should be able to own it.

However that doesn't seem to be the case, here are a couple of examples...

- Apparently the Queen has a legal title to all the “Crown Lands" in Canada, which makes up to whopping 89% of Canada.

- In the UK, you can buy a house but you may not own the freehold, i.e. you don't own the land the property is built on! After the leasehold has expired you may not be able to live in or sell that property.

originally posted by: 83Liberty
Land ownership isn't a birthright, but if you buy the land or are inherited it, then you should be able to own it.

However that doesn't seem to be the case, here are a couple of examples...

- Apparently the Queen has a legal title to all the “Crown Lands" in Canada, which makes up to whopping 89% of Canada.

- In the UK, you can buy a house but you may not own the freehold, i.e. you don't own the land the property is built on! After the leasehold has expired you may not be able to live in or sell that property.

I believe Thailand is like that.

Could be wrong tho.

originally posted by: 83Liberty
Land ownership isn't a birthright, but if you buy the land or are inherited it, then you should be able to own it.

However that doesn't seem to be the case, here are a couple of examples...

- Apparently the Queen has a legal title to all the “Crown Lands" in Canada, which makes up to whopping 89% of Canada.

- In the UK, you can buy a house but you may not own the freehold, i.e. you don't own the land the property is built on! After the leasehold has expired you may not be able to live in or sell that property.

The first one is an urban myth. Crown property is just a way of saying owned by the state. No more owned by the Queen than the US president owns all federal land.

However the increase in leasehold property in England and Wales (not whole of UK) is a disgrace.

along the border, there are property owners now in legal battles to hold onto the land that has been in their family since before the US had title to it. one house recently went up in flames, along with the family pets while the fire trucks rode up and down the road trying to figure out how to get through that "wall" (actually a fence) so many are demanding be built. that "wall" will cut through people's lands, cut their herds from the watering spots, cut the owners off from the family burial sites, divide golf courses making them useless, if they don't have the right to own the property that have been passed down from generation to generation for centuries, then I don't suppose any of us have any property rights.

originally posted by: 83Liberty
- Apparently the Queen has a legal title to all the “Crown Lands" in Canada, which makes up to whopping 89% of Canada.
- In the UK, you can buy a house but you may not own the freehold, i.e. you don't own the land the property is built on! After the leasehold has expired you may not be able to live in or sell that property.

1. Queen - The Queen does not have "legal title" to 89% of Canada. Research the term "Crown Lands" from a reputable source, and don't believe everything you watch on YouTube! Succinctly, Crown Lands is just a term to denote land owned by federal or provincial governments.
2. Leasehold - A leasehold is essentially a long-term rent. In the UK at least, this is just a legal arrangement. If you buy a house with a short leasehold, then it will be cheap. Swings and roundabouts. People have a choice when they buy a property. Edit to add that many flats/apartments are leasehold, as this is a convenient way of managing property, thus enabling the management of common services et al.

"In the UK, you can buy a house but you may not own the freehold, i.e. you don't own the land the property is built on! After the leasehold has expired you may not be able to live in or sell that property."

The quote function doesn't seem to be working for me today, but this is in reply to 83Liberty.

The UK does indeed distinguish between freehold and leasehold, but you are not prevented from owning the freehold... providing that the current owner is actually offering it - which seems to be less likely with modern new build housing estates. That is something that you, as the purchaser, need to be checking. The vast majority of houses are still sold as freehold.

Leasehold is more likely to apply in buildings with multiple separate properties (ie, flats or apartments), though it is reported that 8,875 leasehold houses were sold in 2015. There are actually current proposals with government for prohibiting houses being sold as leasehold.

originally posted by: paraphi...If you buy a house with a short leasehold, then it will be cheap...

The flip side to this being that you'll have a hell of a job selling it for what you paid, and you may not be able to take out a mortgage on it.

I believe there may be a mechanism for forcing an extension, but you'd need someone who didn't last study landlaw 20 years ago to comment in detail


(Hmm, the quote function now works...)

a reply to: toysforadults

Using natural law as a basis, no. Natural law is what gives you security in your home. Same as a bear is secure in his den. But land ownership would be equated with territory. If you want your own territory, be dominant enough to claim and then protect it.

Since humans are evolved tribal primates, this would mean the tribe owns the territory collectively. And defends it from neighboring tribes. Pretty much what we have already.

originally posted by: toysforadults
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.

Yes... As long as it's paid for, inherited or given...every American... Even babies can one day own a piece of the rock...

Certainly it's not FREE

a reply to: Lumenari

I'm just curious did you take the time to read my source article?

Did you see the argument they make for natural law and where and when that law ends and begins?

Apparently not everyone believes in the sane applications of natural law.

Strong stern point of view though.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Actually you are wrong.

At some point all land was free. You have to consider the fact that in this interpretation of natural law they concede to the fact that land ownership is based on use and need.

a reply to: Lumenari

You are a native american who supports the founding fathers? Interesting

originally posted by: Harpua
a reply to: Lumenari

You are a native american who supports the founding fathers? Interesting

Where I live we call it reality.

We do not live in the 1500's now.

I support the ideals put forth by the founding fathers simply because it is a better set of ideals than my own people had.

Now, not all Indians support this, because it is much easier to just take the government check, do nothing, have another drink and talk about the good old times. Times that they wouldn't be able to survive now.

You know... victims.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Lumenari

I'm just curious did you take the time to read my source article?

Did you see the argument they make for natural law and where and when that law ends and begins?

Apparently not everyone believes in the sane applications of natural law.

Strong stern point of view though.

I did read Daniel's thoughts on the subject, yes.

I found them quite familiar, since he is just paraphrasing Karl Marx in his (rather epic, btw) works called Capital.

If you are interested in the topic and Marx' ideas on property rights and capitalism, he put out three volumes that are available in PDF.

First Volume here

a reply to: Lumenari

You automatically went to a Karl Marx reference and private property rights.

Its impossible to simply discuss ideas without this kind of nonsense anymore.

originally posted by: Nothin
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.

This is so much a mythical idea and demonstrates how poorly americans have been educated about the very real political world of the american natives. East of the Mississippi tribes had to ask permission from the Federal, if you will, Algonquin government to settle land/tribal conflicts. Which many tribes had......land and tribal conflicts. Who could settle where or move here. One tribe couldn't simply move its lot without question.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Lumenari

You automatically went to a Karl Marx reference and private property rights.

Its impossible to simply discuss ideas without this kind of nonsense anymore.

The writer you linked is paraphrasing Karl Marx and his idea of private property rights.

Where else am I supposed to go with that? Aristotle perhaps?

Read Karl Marx' Capital and get back to me.

Until then, I guess you are right... no need to discuss the idea if you can't even understand the concept behind your OP.

Edited to add... Karl Marx was a brilliant social scientist and the first to theorize about capitalism and private property rights. His work "Capital" was his magnum opus. It is WELL worth the read. I just don't personally agree with his theory, for reasons we could discuss on this thread if you had a little more knowledge on the subject. Don't have a knee-jerk reaction to the name Karl Marx. Instead read about how he thought about the subject, come to your own conclusions about it and discuss it.

My opinion on the subject of private property rights is just that.. an opinion. Feel free to knock any holes in it you wish.

I just wanted to share my current opinion. And it has gone through many changes over the years and will continue to do so.

Yes, I think private ownership of land is theft from the citizenry.

And I'm coming to believe that private ownership of any but the most personal items is theft from some theft and therefore 'evil'.

My moral/ethical thinking tells me that the Earth and her resources (of with other things are made) is a shared resource and that those resources must be used for the wellbeing of Her inhabitants.

Now the practicalities of this, and the gradual evolution to a more egalitarian civilization will be filled with difficulty. Just imagining how such a society would function is impossible for many minds (though Star Trek has made a start).

a reply to: FyreByrd

Ahhh wonderful post and thanks for the perspective.

So in this world of yours I'm assuming a less primal vision for the future exist where our base instincts have adjust to enough years of abundance?

Oh, I will also add I haven't seen you post in a while but I enjoy them.