Privately owned land Vs Nationalized land?
Privately owned land
75.9% (22)
75.9% (22)
Nationalized land
24.1% (7)
24.1% (7)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Privately owned land Vs Public land?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So I got debating with someone I knew who felt that it should not be possible for private parties to own land, but only to build on them or things on them, but not to own the actual land itself.

I personally don't agree because I consider land to be something that can be owned just like everything else, though I still think there should be rules and regulations about what can and can't be done with land.

What are your thougths?

Should most land be owned by private entities or be owned by the state intead?

I think there are a few cases where people/corporations should be able to own private land, which is entirely theirs:

- Homes that are not larger than a couple of acres
- Private companies
- Government agencies/political assemblies/schools

However, I'd say that wherever possible public access should be a legal right for the grounds, not the actual buildings, of private property. An example is in my hometown, where a school has fields surrounding it of around 1 square mile - there has been a public right of way there since the medieval ages, as otherwise trying to get from one side of town to another would take absolutely ages. The school tried to illegally restrict access to the site and got huge opposition from the community, as the path across isn't hurting anybody.

Basically, I'm fine with private property, but only when the size of the land is appropriate. There's no point declaring vast tracts of countryside private for instance, as it just gets really hard to navigate across.

The concept of a person or a country having the "right" to a piece of the earth seems just completely stupid to me.

I don't think all land should belong to the state and you merely rent it as it raises the issue of compulsory purchase orders and clearances (both of which I think are an overstep)

However owning the land for all time (or until you sell) has it's own problems. There was an old factory/warehouse in my town that got shut down decades ago and left to rot. Was a complete eyesore and the locals wanted the local council to renovate it but they couldn't as they would have to buy the land at market value. Buildings got torn down eventually due to safety concerns but that patch of land is still sitting abandoned.

It's obvious the person who holds the title deeds isn't going to be using it so why shouldn't the deeds be returned to the state so it could be put to use in some way? At the very least government wouldn't be too fussy about what they can sell it on for.

So maybe something similar to an aspect of squatters law? iirc if you stay in an abandoned property for about 10 years and maintain it in a safe and liveable condition then if the owner has not confronted you in that time the deeds transfer to you. So if you abandon a property, whether it be residential or industrial, for an extended period (at least a decade) then your property rights are revoked and the local government gets the deeds, to do with as they wish.

SimpleThunda':
The concept of a person or a country having the "right" to a piece of the earth seems just completely stupid to me.

I take it you won't object then if I build a house for myself in your garden?

A lot of that should be governed be spatial planning considerations I think. Spatial planning provides the analyses you need, for the land usage you need. It's important to use spatial planning as a force of it's own, and not as a tool to obtain political objectives.

The US for instance is taught as an example of 'how not to', because their spatial planning has mostly been a facilitator of big property developers making profits. The results: dead inner cities, extremely expensive inner cities, unsustainable conditions in many other parts of a city, and endless suburbs that are completely dependant on cars and lack many services that any residential area needs acces to.

To name an example, it's well documented that from poor suburbs, people often have a hard time reaching a supermarket with good healthy food. Sometimes fastfood is all you can buy within walking distance or short driving distance. This has contributed a lot to the obesity epidemic in the US.


As for the dichotomy the OP mentioned. I don't see why people can't own land. However, that shouldn't mean they can do just anything with it. Property rights do not shut out responsibilities that someone has. To stick with the yanks for examples, I have noticed that "I can do whatever I like cuz IT'S MINE!" is a popular way of thinking for some people over there, and that will produce problems.

Karma168:
I don't think all land should belong to the state and you merely rent it as it raises the issue of compulsory purchase orders and clearances (both of which I think are an overstep)

However owning the land for all time (or until you sell) has it's own problems. There was an old factory/warehouse in my town that got shut down decades ago and left to rot. Was a complete eyesore and the locals wanted the local council to renovate it but they couldn't as they would have to buy the land at market value. Buildings got torn down eventually due to safety concerns but that patch of land is still sitting abandoned.

It's obvious the person who holds the title deeds isn't going to be using it so why shouldn't the deeds be returned to the state so it could be put to use in some way? At the very least government wouldn't be too fussy about what they can sell it on for.

So maybe something similar to an aspect of squatters law? iirc if you stay in an abandoned property for about 10 years and maintain it in a safe and liveable condition then if the owner has not confronted you in that time the deeds transfer to you. So if you abandon a property, whether it be residential or industrial, for an extended period (at least a decade) then your property rights are revoked and the local government gets the deeds, to do with as they wish.

It seems odd to be basing law on such childish logic (literally, not figuratively or as an insult) though. I mean, I still find myself leaning towards the idea, but it seems odd to be basing law on the idea that it's not stealing if they aren't going to use it anyway. However, at the same time I believe that there tends to be precedent towards favoring the person who is actually using property over those who legally own it.

Depends. Private property doesn't mean that you're a sovereign country, so you still have to allow passage if you're property is large enough, like say for example a whole countryside. You still are allowed a modicum of privacy though.

Areas of scientific or historical value are placed under the Antiquities Act in the United States if I remember correctly. That's why the Grand Canyon is a national park. Fragile areas like wetlands, natural vistas or ruins shouldn't be owned by anyone else but the government.

JoJo:

SimpleThunda':
The concept of a person or a country having the "right" to a piece of the earth seems just completely stupid to me.

I take it you won't object then if I build a house for myself in your garden?

I would object. What makes you think I wouldn't forcefully remove you from my garden?

I agree, you can own a house but to say this land is yours and yours alone for all eternity is a bit of a strange concept. I dont think all land should be nationalized but surely theres going to come a time with overpopulation and whatnot where there just isnt enough to go around

SimpleThunda':

JoJo:

SimpleThunda':
The concept of a person or a country having the "right" to a piece of the earth seems just completely stupid to me.

I take it you won't object then if I build a house for myself in your garden?

I would object. What makes you think I wouldn't forcefully remove you from my garden?

In your own words:

The concept of a person or a country having the "right" to a piece of the earth seems just completely stupid to me.

And yet you would enforce the exclusive right to a piece of the earth that belongs to you? Little bit of a contradiction there.

Whoever travels to the land earlier has more right to own it than those who travel there later, unless such rights are sold of course.

So the natives of America have more right to the land than the colonists, unless they sold the land.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the natives sold the land to the colonists in the understanding that it really belonged to the gods, so afterwards the colonists only had rights to do things with the land that would be allowed by the gods.

Being gods, they could disallow certain uses of the land by using their godly powers to make such uses impossible.

Important fragile areas should be bought by people who can be pressured by those they're important to into preserving them.

But if someone who wants to squander the land got it first, they still have the right to squander, because that's capitalism, to which the only alternative is communism, which the USSR has handily proven degrades into corruption, then tyranny, then ruin.

Coppernerves:
because that's capitalism, to which the only alternative is communism

That's an extraordinary claim. I'd sure like some extraordinary evidence to back that up. ESPECIALLY since neither capitalism nor communism even existed a few centuries ago...

Coppernerves:

But if someone who wants to squander the land got it first, they still have the right to squander, because that's capitalism, to which the only alternative is communism, which the USSR has handily proven degrades into corruption, then tyranny, then ruin.

I can't tell if you're joking.

I take it you don't know of the Antiquities Act (which only applies if you're American and I haven't heard anyone else ever use the blatant communism vs capitalism diaspora before, so I'm reasonably sure you are). Pure capitalism is inherently flawed as Communism and is not conductive to democracy.

That's why choosing public over private and vice versa is stupid. It's a needless absolute. An industry can't dump waste in rivers for example, since the watershed so much more than that particular part of land. We live in a system more interconnected than people believe.

Vegosiux:

Coppernerves:
because that's capitalism, to which the only alternative is communism

That's an extraordinary claim. I'd sure like some extraordinary evidence to back that up. ESPECIALLY since neither capitalism nor communism even existed a few centuries ago...

Not to mention that Capitalism and Communism comes in degrees. We can have a left-leaning Capitalism (Like several European countries) or a right-leaning "Communism" (Like China, which allows free trade in certain aspects, though it doesn't deserve to be called Communism in my mind).

And personally, I find the question too clear-cut. It isn't either/or. Yes, people should have the right to own a certain set of land. But yes, Nations should also at times have the right to nationalize said land if it is needed, and even though they should preferably pay the owner of the land for his loss, this is not always necessary so.
For instance, a lot of people own a lot of timber in my country. Should we, for some reason, need that land in the future, I have no problem with the government just taking it, and in return paying the owner a set sum, even if said sum isn't what the owner would get 'on the open market'.

JoJo:

SimpleThunda':

JoJo:

I take it you won't object then if I build a house for myself in your garden?

I would object. What makes you think I wouldn't forcefully remove you from my garden?

In your own words:

The concept of a person or a country having the "right" to a piece of the earth seems just completely stupid to me.

And yet you would enforce the exclusive right to a piece of the earth that belongs to you? Little bit of a contradiction there.

Eh, maybe he means that no-one has a 'right' to a piece of land per definition, and that it is more of a privileged.
Like, for instance, most of the US and plenty of Europe is living on land that once belong to someone else. Now we claim right to it, but not due to nature, but due to brute force.

Coppernerves:
Whoever travels to the land earlier has more right to own it than those who travel there later, unless such rights are sold of course.

So the natives of America have more right to the land than the colonists, unless they sold the land.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the natives sold the land to the colonists in the understanding that it really belonged to the gods, so afterwards the colonists only had rights to do things with the land that would be allowed by the gods.

A tad absurd, and arbitrary, if you are being serious. Why would 'traveled X geographical area first' entitle you to own it? And how on earth would we track such a thing? How would we know WHICH group of people traveled X place first?

SimpleThunda':

JoJo:

SimpleThunda':
The concept of a person or a country having the "right" to a piece of the earth seems just completely stupid to me.

I take it you won't object then if I build a house for myself in your garden?

I would object. What makes you think I wouldn't forcefully remove you from my garden?

So, the concept of a person having the "right" to a piece of earth seems stupid, yet you would forcibly remove anyone who does anything you don't like to "your" garden? Which is it, then? You can't have it both ways. Either you reserve the right to use it how you will, or you don't.

Karma168:
It's obvious the person who holds the title deeds isn't going to be using it so why shouldn't the deeds be returned to the state so it could be put to use in some way? At the very least government wouldn't be too fussy about what they can sell it on for.

They goes back to the question of "How can it be obvious that someone isn't going to use something?" In 1965, Disney bought 47 square miles of land in Florida. In 2013, they've still only used about half of it. Can we say that "they aren't going to use" the other half? No. I don't think anyone expects that they're done expanding Disney World. How do we decide when something "won't be used"?

JoJo:

SimpleThunda':

JoJo:

I take it you won't object then if I build a house for myself in your garden?

I would object. What makes you think I wouldn't forcefully remove you from my garden?

In your own words:

The concept of a person or a country having the "right" to a piece of the earth seems just completely stupid to me.

And yet you would enforce the exclusive right to a piece of the earth that belongs to you? Little bit of a contradiction there.

Not quite. Because having the "right" to land means that there is a law that states that that piece of land is yours.
I don't need to have the "right" to a piece of land to remove you from it.

Lilani:

SimpleThunda':

JoJo:

I take it you won't object then if I build a house for myself in your garden?

I would object. What makes you think I wouldn't forcefully remove you from my garden?

So, the concept of a person having the "right" to a piece of earth seems stupid, yet you would forcibly remove anyone who does anything you don't like to "your" garden? Which is it, then? You can't have it both ways. Either you reserve the right to use it how you will, or you don't.

Having the "right" means you have a law system on your side.

I'm against that.

I don't need the right to my garden to forcefully remove anyone from there.

SimpleThunda':

Lilani:

SimpleThunda':

I would object. What makes you think I wouldn't forcefully remove you from my garden?

So, the concept of a person having the "right" to a piece of earth seems stupid, yet you would forcibly remove anyone who does anything you don't like to "your" garden? Which is it, then? You can't have it both ways. Either you reserve the right to use it how you will, or you don't.

Having the "right" means you have a law system on your side.

I'm against that.

I don't need the right to my garden to forcefully remove anyone from there.

Unless they are bigger than you or there's more of them. In which case you really, really do.

thaluikhain:

SimpleThunda':

Lilani:

So, the concept of a person having the "right" to a piece of earth seems stupid, yet you would forcibly remove anyone who does anything you don't like to "your" garden? Which is it, then? You can't have it both ways. Either you reserve the right to use it how you will, or you don't.

Having the "right" means you have a law system on your side.

I'm against that.

I don't need the right to my garden to forcefully remove anyone from there.

Unless they are bigger than you or there's more of them. In which case you really, really do.

I suppose I'd be f'd in that case. Yet, still I am against it.
I'm convinced that people can figure something out without government intervening. If that means some poor sod gets kicked off his land every once in a while, I'll gladly make that sacrifice.

Coppernerves:
Whoever travels to the land earlier has more right to own it than those who travel there later, unless such rights are sold of course.
So the natives of America have more right to the land than the colonists, unless they sold the land.

That's a load of rubbish, and not how property rights work. For one thing you're ignoring the fact that if you start a war against another group and they win, you get to keep whatever you win.

Also get to keep what you win if you were the agressor by the way, unless your name is Israel for whom a special exception is made.

SimpleThunda':
I would object. What makes you think I wouldn't forcefully remove you from my garden?

The fact that you don't own your garden, so he can build a house in it, according to your own argument.

But you seem to have a problem with that yourself, so probably your argument was wrong.

SimpleThunda':
Having the "right" means you have a law system on your side.

I'm against that.

I don't need the right to my garden to forcefully remove anyone from there.

I'm pretty sure there isn't much you can do to anyone "forcefully" without getting criminally charged.

SimpleThunda':
I suppose I'd be f'd in that case. Yet, still I am against it.
I'm convinced that people can figure something out without government intervening. If that means some poor sod gets kicked off his land every once in a while, I'll gladly make that sacrifice.

So basically what you want is mob rule? The person with the biggest posse and the pointiest sticks gets whatever they want?

Lilani:

SimpleThunda':
Having the "right" means you have a law system on your side.

I'm against that.

I don't need the right to my garden to forcefully remove anyone from there.

I'm pretty sure there isn't much you can do to anyone "forcefully" without getting criminally charged.

SimpleThunda':
I suppose I'd be f'd in that case. Yet, still I am against it.
I'm convinced that people can figure something out without government intervening. If that means some poor sod gets kicked off his land every once in a while, I'll gladly make that sacrifice.

So basically what you want is mob rule? The person with the biggest posse and the pointiest sticks gets whatever they want?

That's basically what we have now and what we've always had. Police with guns. Army with guns. That's the only reason government gets what she wants.

And in a world where landownership isn't a thing, it's safe to say the law no longer holds a very firm grip over humanity.

Blablahb:

SimpleThunda':
I would object. What makes you think I wouldn't forcefully remove you from my garden?

The fact that you don't own your garden, so he can build a house in it, according to your own argument.

But you seem to have a problem with that yourself, so probably your argument was wrong.

Nobody owns that garden. Not a person, nor a country, atleast in the situation I tried to sketch. So I could do whatever I want on that piece of land and that includes kicking someone off of it.

SimpleThunda':
That's basically what we have now and what we've always had. Police with guns. Army with guns. That's the only reason government gets what she wants.

And in a world where landownership isn't a thing, it's safe to say the law no longer holds a very firm grip over humanity.

Oh, so it's anarchy you want. Why didn't you say earlier?

Never mind, carry on. This isn't a discussion about anarchy.

Lilani:

SimpleThunda':
That's basically what we have now and what we've always had. Police with guns. Army with guns. That's the only reason government gets what she wants.

And in a world where landownership isn't a thing, it's safe to say the law no longer holds a very firm grip over humanity.

Oh, so it's anarchy you want. Why didn't you say earlier?

Never mind, carry on. This isn't a discussion about anarchy.

We were discussing who should own land. I argued nobody. That may be an anarchistic ideal, and I am most certainly an anarchist, but I do not see how an argument about who should own the land is not related to this topic.

I find it a rather cheap way out.

SimpleThunda':
We were discussing who should own land. I argued nobody. That may be an anarchistic ideal, and I am most certainly an anarchist, but I do not see how an argument about who should own the land is not related to this topic.

I find it a rather cheap way out.

I got the anarchy thing from your opinion on land and from the contempt you seem to have for the government ("I can force people off my land like a bully because that's what the government does.")

The only way I would want to steer a conversation about anarchistic ideals is that it would be one of the fastest way to bring society to a grinding halt. No standard of law and order means no standard of living can take root. It would come down to the person with the most power and the pointiest sticks, and while it would be "freedom" in the way of not having a government telling everyone what to do, that "freedom" would apply only to those who have clawed themselves above everyone else who will be out to tell them what to do. Which would be a very, very small number of people, and you would probably not be one of them.

Lilani:

SimpleThunda':
We were discussing who should own land. I argued nobody. That may be an anarchistic ideal, and I am most certainly an anarchist, but I do not see how an argument about who should own the land is not related to this topic.

I find it a rather cheap way out.

I got the anarchy thing from your opinion on land and from the contempt you seem to have for the government ("I can force people off my land like a bully because that's what the government does.")

The only way I would want to steer a conversation about anarchistic ideals is that it would be one of the fastest way to bring society to a grinding halt. No standard of law and order means no standard of living can take root. It would come down to the person with the most power and the pointiest sticks, and while it would be "freedom" in the way of not having a government telling everyone what to do, that "freedom" would apply only to those who have clawed themselves above everyone else who will be out to tell them what to do. Which would be a very, very small number of people, and you would probably not be one of them.

Think of all the good it would do.

No more polution, no more exploitation of animals, no more greedy banks screwing over the entire world to fill their own pockets. No more governments controlling their population and spoon-feeding them with propaganda. No more governments sending their young men and women out to take a bullet to the skull for the sake of oil and the wallets of the people who own the government.

An end to a world of lies.

NOW this is starting to get off-topic... Feel free to PM me, though.

Aris Khandr:

Karma168:
It's obvious the person who holds the title deeds isn't going to be using it so why shouldn't the deeds be returned to the state so it could be put to use in some way? At the very least government wouldn't be too fussy about what they can sell it on for.

They goes back to the question of "How can it be obvious that someone isn't going to use something?" In 1965, Disney bought 47 square miles of land in Florida. In 2013, they've still only used about half of it. Can we say that "they aren't going to use" the other half? No. I don't think anyone expects that they're done expanding Disney World. How do we decide when something "won't be used"?

If you read the next paragraph you'll see there's a bit in squatters rights that says it only get revoked if the original owner doesn't claim it within the time limit. I don't really care what a company does with a piece of land as long as they show they actually want it. The guy that owns that plot in my town, it's been so long he probably has no idea he still owns it and he'll never likely do anything with it.

So as long as the company actively wants a piece of land they can keep it. Think of it like when someone hands a lost item into the police, if you don't claim it inside a month or so you lose it for good. If you go check you suffer no consequences.

SimpleThunda':

Lilani:

SimpleThunda':
We were discussing who should own land. I argued nobody. That may be an anarchistic ideal, and I am most certainly an anarchist, but I do not see how an argument about who should own the land is not related to this topic.

I find it a rather cheap way out.

I got the anarchy thing from your opinion on land and from the contempt you seem to have for the government ("I can force people off my land like a bully because that's what the government does.")

The only way I would want to steer a conversation about anarchistic ideals is that it would be one of the fastest way to bring society to a grinding halt. No standard of law and order means no standard of living can take root. It would come down to the person with the most power and the pointiest sticks, and while it would be "freedom" in the way of not having a government telling everyone what to do, that "freedom" would apply only to those who have clawed themselves above everyone else who will be out to tell them what to do. Which would be a very, very small number of people, and you would probably not be one of them.

Think of all the good it would do.

No more polution, no more exploitation of animals, no more greedy banks screwing over the entire world to fill their own pockets. No more governments controlling their population and spoon-feeding them with propaganda. No more governments sending their young men and women out to take a bullet to the skull for the sake of oil and the wallets of the people who own the government.

An end to a world of lies.

NOW this is starting to get off-topic... Feel free to PM me, though.

No more regulations on pollution and exploitation, greedy individuals screwing over others without legal repercussions, individuals or possibly a band of mohawk-sporting motorcyclists controlling the population through sheer terror, people taking bullets to the skull in a stupid effort to challenge the established social hierarchy that screwed them over.
A start to a world of madness.

You seem to be implying that there is no need for a law and that simply the strongest party should own the land. So suppose I get together with a bunch of guys, we arm ourselves, march into a small town and claim ownership on all the land. But we allow them to stay there as long as we receive a tenth of their income and there's also a chance they can join our group if they are willing and together we will take over another area and do the same. Justified, right? We can do what we want because there is no law to stop us from expanding and claiming everything as ours. It's the perfect un-Darwinian survival of the strongest.
You are suggesting feudalism, my friend. A system we got mostly rid of hundrets of years ago because it was so shit. I don't know what makes you think that the medieval approach is the most reasonable thing you can come up with regarding land ownership.

In the past we had no laws on pollution, subsequently companies just let their toxic sewage run free into the rivers. There was no ethical treatment of animals and food hygiene, nothing stopped you from using battery cages or selling meat of sick cattle. Bloody tribal war over control of the only green patches in a desert environment went on for ages before countries were invented.
To assume that getting rid of the scapegoat gouvernment would mean an age of perfect idyll is, quite frankly, absurdly naive.

Another dimension to this argument is what you own on your land. In many western states of the US, you don't own your water. For example, it was illegal in Colorado, until very recently to have cisterns over x 100 gallons. So even though it was raining over your property, it was illegal to collect the raindrops falling on your head, in any large amount. I don't know much about water or mineral rights, I just know it's an incredibly complex and archaic(and interesting) patchwork of laws.

@SimpleThunda'
"I suppose I'd be f'd in that case. Yet, still I am against it.
I'm convinced that people can figure something out without government intervening. If that means some poor sod gets kicked off his land every once in a while, I'll gladly make that sacrifice."

You'd be willing to make that sacrifice? Why? What's the purpose of making that sacrifice? Is there any benefit to it? Or is it just about some "small government at any cost"-principle rather than anything tangible that you would make that sacrifice for?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked