Land Ownership

History is filled with examples of groups of people taking land from other groups of people. Or more accurately, recorded history is filled with such examples. When we do not have information that stretches far back enough, we simply refer to the oldest group of people known (according to information available at the time) as indigenous to that land. It is very likely that the people we refer to as "indigenous" once upon a time had to fight for the land they possessed to establish that land as theirs, or at least faced internal conflicts that lead to land wars for existing land.

Think of a country that exists today due to the dispossession of an indigenous population. What made the dispossession real? Is it because a people's identity, culture and way of life were destroyed and overtaken by a different group of people? What if the land were just handed back suddenly? Wouldn't the current people's identity, culture and way of life also be destroyed in the same manner? Would this current injustice cancel out the older injustice, or would it simply create greater tension in the world?

There are, of course, various modern examples of this issue and I would urge readers of this thread to refrain from discussing specific examples as not to derail the intent of this thread.

Some questions to ponder:

1) At what point is land considered as "owned" by an ethnic/cultural/tribal group?

2) What span of time dictates when one group of people can claim ownership over a strip of land?

3) Does the failure of a group of people to successfully defend their land mean that it is up for grabs until a group settles in that can defend the borders? Why or why not?

4) Should land be returned to those that recorded history recognises as the rightful owners of that land?

5) What documents/objects constitute sufficient proof for one group's claim to a strip of land? Historical documents, religious texts, wall carvings?

Nice questions. You will either wake people up to the illusion of ownership with this thread, or have them defending systems that give them permission to say they own something.

To answer all you q's, I think atoms are on loan to us and belong to the universe.

This will be a little tough without specific examples and I'll try but may have to cite some examples at the end.


Q.1) At what point is land considered as "owned" by an ethnic/cultural/tribal group?

A.1) At the point that they actually believe they "own" land.

Really! Alot of indigenous cultures would not have considered themselves to be land "owners". Care-takers maybe, visitors, blessed rent-free occupiers but owners? no.. The only reasons for owning land are profit and housing in a congested area, which is usually determined by where the "owner" lives in order to profit. Loaded question



Q.2) What span of time dictates when one group of people can claim ownership over a strip of land?

A.2) See A.1).



Q.3) Does the failure of a group of people to successfully defend their land mean that it is up for grabs until a group settles in that can defend the borders? Why or why not?

A.3) Yes, so long as both entities aim to benefit from the land. Its a dog eat dog world in land ownership. However, without the principle of ownership, I believe the land could be shared or that territorial boundaries might be more respected.



Q.4) Should land be returned to those that recorded history recognises as the rightful owners of that land?

A.4) Now is when we need examples. They are relevant!

Lets use two of the very broadest examples we can here to show no bias, the US & Australia. First, again, the only people who ever claimed ownership here still own it. Alot of Native Americans sold they're claims to land holdings. Eventually they stopped wanting to sell and the Trail of tears happened.. etc.

This isn't feasible due to the numbers alone. The population of remaining American Indian and Alaska Native persons in the US is 1.2%.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population of Australia was estimated to be 517,000 people at 30 June 2006, or 2.5% of the total Australian population.

How would this go? Would the non-aboriginal races of the US have to pay an extra tax? If that were the case we would get some DNA testing done and a bunch of the "Native Americans" would be paying those taxes too. Mayans migrated to the US 2000 years ago through Tampa Bay and established the mound builders culture which spread all over, just sayin'.

From a totally ethical standpoint, yeah! Lets pack our bags and get off they're property! We know that would never happen..



Q.5) What documents/objects constitute sufficient proof for one group's claim to a strip of land? Historical documents, religious texts, wall carvings?

A.5) Is this strip of land newly available or previously unclaimed? If so, whichever would be the oldest.

So rock carvings as you said or whatever archeology would show to be the closest link to the first culture present on said stretch of land.


Fun Topic!


As for these I don't wanna touch em'.. I think about these applying to the US and just start laughing.

What if the land were just handed back suddenly? Wouldn't the current people's identity, culture and way of life also be destroyed in the same manner?

Originally posted by Wifibrains
Nice questions. You will either wake people up to the illusion of ownership with this thread, or have them defending systems that give them permission to say they own something.

To answer all you q's, I think atoms are on loan to us and belong to the universe.

Good Answer.

In our county the very rich are the people who got LAND 100% free a few generations ago when America was giving away land so men could make something of themselves on it so the country could tax them.

Those massive land owners now can have large sects logged off and get free money every year. They also own almost alllll the homes in the county and sell them for high prices. People come in and buy the homes...can't make enough to pay it off. It gets seized and that same damn guy buys them for 1/5th the price then flips them around and repeats the process.

He's a KING......there are many in America like him living the high life off of the free land his great granpappy got.....while the rest of us are left to a life of hell.

1 piece of paper.

Articles of Surrender. Surrender America back to England so EVERYONE in power joins us serfs....and THEY ALL lose their land holdings and join us serfs.

The ONLY sollution to the problems in America is to surrender the country back to the Queen/King of England.

If we got the ball rolling and the rich realized they could lose it all.....you'd see VERY big changes in America with jobs and careers coming back....along with FREE land.

According to John Locke, Natural law says humans are entitled to three things, life, liberty, and property.

Agent Smith replies: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.

Humans can't develop a natural equilibruim with land because they feel entitled to it; they have to own it.

And so I've concluded John Locke thinks the human race is a virus.

Land ownership is an interesting discussion, and has so much to do with our present economic system.

Up until the 1700's, at least in Europe, land was mostly owned by the ruling classes from conquest. But land owners were not allowed to deny use of land, that they themselves were not using, to the 'commoners', as we were known then. But they could charge rent, and usually did. This was know as common land.

Towards the end of feudalism in Britain, a lot of 'commoners' were setting up cooperative communities, sharing resources, and were essentially autonomous. The income of the commoners was raising, which was weakening the economic power of the ruling class. The land owners, the ruling class of the time, saw this as a threat to their position of authority and control. So they had the 'Inclosure Laws' enacted, which allowed land owners to fence off their land, and deny it's use to anyone. It also allowed the selling of parcels of fenced off land. This didn't happen overnight, starting in the 1750's, it took until the 1860's until all land was enclosed.

This had the effect of forcing the commoners off the land, where they were farmers and craftsmen, and put them into the factories, and mills of the land owners. This is how we became wage slaves for the profit of a minority class of private economic property owners. The land/property owners made a lot of money from the 'surplus value' created by paying workers for less than they actually produced. A lot of this wealth was invested in automation of factories, reducing labour, and increasing production and profit. Which lead to the printing press, and the production line 'division of labour' industry, and the industrial revolution.

This increased profits and wealth for the few, but turned the majority into wage slaves with no skills. All because the land owners, who became the capitalists when the term was introduced, had the power to have laws enacted to their gain. It is still the same way, capitalists control the state for their benefit.

reply to post by Dark Ghost



Thanks for the thread though I doubt it will get much attention. I've been thinking about this issue for a while and am coming to the idea that land should not be privately owned by anyone.

An earlier poster mentioned equilibrium with the land involved and correctly pointed out that such a balance is not possible with modern humanity.

I rather like the old idea of 'holding' land (perhaps Anok can help with some history here) rather than owning it. Holding refers to stewardship and holding the land for the common good. I've come to believe that all land and large real property should be 'held' in and for the common good.

One would, say, hold a farm, pay rent to the 'common pot' and be responsible for the upkeep and sustainablity of the land (according to the terms of the agreement) and make a nice profit or not, even allow decendants first right to the 'lease' when one retired or died. In this way 'ownership' would benefit all not just the landlords.

Simplistic, maybe - I think necessary to a humane and sustainable society.

Thanks again for the thread

reply to post by FyreByrd


Yeah it could be done simply by use. As long as you are putting the land to good use (home, producing enough for yourself, not for profit, etc.), then you control it, and are responsible for it. You still don't "own" it, if you stop using the land then it becomes free again for anyone to use.

That keeps people from turning land into a salable commodity, which increases land value out of the hands of anyone but the super wealthy, and monopolising land for profit.

Capitalism would fail if land was "owned" in common. Land is all you need, is all anyone needs to be self sufficient, and autonomous. The land owners of the 1700's new this. Government doesn't deny you, the capitalist system does, government is just one of the tools they use to control, along with money and media.

But in the present system even land owners are not free to do as they wish, which is OK for the wealthy because money solves those problems. If you had land, but no money, it would be impossible to abide by state laws.

It might be different in the states, but I doubt it, in Britain you can't live, say, in a tent, or any structure, in a permanent spot with out planning permission, with all the requirements you have to follow such as running water, and electricity (power), connected to the grid. I knew people who tried it, and got evicted by the council.

Basically the land owners, who are the ruling classes and the capitalists, made sure it would be very difficult for anyone of the lower classes to become economic threats to their class. Whomever has the economic power are the ones who really control things, they are the shadow government.