NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't think we have had this debate in ages, so I think we should start it up again. I'm pretty sure the thread will be divided on the issue of whether you can truly own land or property.

I will start off by stating my view, you can and should be allowed to own land in the contractual sense, not in the physical sense. This is what I think the flaw is in many far leftists thinking, they assume that land ownership literally means that the peice of earth is physically and rightfully yours, as if it was your own child, which of course can cause problems easy for the anti land ownership crowd to be perdantic about. To me, land ownership is a contract, a legal and consenting contract saying that you are allowed to use, stay and privatise (or publicise) parts, none or all of the space that the contract allows. Because of the nature of the contract, nobody is allowed to break this contract without a warrent and is completely legally binding. I will go more into this depending on how the debate flows...

I don't think we have had this debate in ages, so I think we should start it up again. I'm pretty sure the thread will be divided on the issue of whether you can truly own land or property.

I will start off by stating my view, you can and should be allowed to own land in the contractual sense, not in the physical sense. This is what I think the flaw is in many far leftists thinking, they assume that land ownership literally means that the peice of earth is physically and rightfully yours, as if it was your own child, which of course can cause problems easy for the anti land ownership crowd to be perdantic about. To me, land ownership is a contract, a legal and consenting contract saying that you are allowed to use, stay and privatise (or publicise) parts, none or all of the space that the contract allows. Because of the nature of the contract, nobody is allowed to break this contract without a warrent and is completely legally binding. I will go more into this depending on how the debate flows...

Equally, you fail to explore the relationship between proprietorial rights upon a contractual, and physical level. I would suggest that contractual ownership equates very directly to physical ownership in the context of western capitalism, and thus socialist attack upon the illogicality of physical ownership is an attack by proxy upon contractual ownership.

Crap forgot to add an "other" option.

Equally, you fail to explore the relationship between proprietorial rights upon a contractual, and physical level. I would suggest that contractual ownership equates very directly to physical ownership in the context of western capitalism, and thus socialist attack upon the illogicality of physical ownership is an attack by proxy upon contractual ownership.

Firstly, may I ask what you think the illogicality of land ownership is?

I oppose the concept of ownership, so...

With that said, the option I picked draws a distinction between the government and the state. I support government redistribution, but not state redistribution.

I don't think we have had this debate in ages, so I think we should start it up again..Where have you been? ;)

I think that land should be held communally, in a trust relationship for future generations. So, you could access resources on that land, but you could not create a situation where your depletion would cause those resources to be unavailable for future generations. You'd have a fiduciary duty to put the interests of future generations first...clearly you'd have to have enough to live on or there WOULD BE NO future generations, so no, you don't have to quietly starve to death under a tree.

I don't think we have had this debate in ages, so I think we should start it up again. I'm pretty sure the thread will be divided on the issue of whether you can truly own land or property.

I will start off by stating my view, you can and should be allowed to own land in the contractual sense, not in the physical sense. This is what I think the flaw is in many far leftists thinking, they assume that land ownership literally means that the peice of earth is physically and rightfully yours, as if it was your own child, which of course can cause problems easy for the anti land ownership crowd to be perdantic about. To me, land ownership is a contract, a legal and consenting contract saying that you are allowed to use, stay and privatise (or publicise) parts, none or all of the space that the contract allows. Because of the nature of the contract, nobody is allowed to break this contract without a warrent and is completely legally binding. I will go more into this depending on how the debate flows...

I think maybe I'm missing the point here but as a left leaning person I can assure I do own my piece of land in a physical way....

How exactly?

You live in Canada, right?

You don't own your land at all. You own an estate in your land, but you do not have allodial title to the land itself.

But more interestingly...how does one physical take ownership over something like land?

By removing anyone on it by force one assumes.

I think maybe I'm missing the point here but as a left leaning person I can assure I do own my piece of land in a physical way....

How exactly?

You live in Canada, right?

You don't own your land at all. You own an estate in your land, but you do not have allodial title to the land itself.

But more interestingly...how does one physical take ownership over something like land?

To the OP...do far right people not believe they have ownership of land? Or are you talking about right in the context of state control and left as an absence of? I'm a bit confused here.

So if you're on vacation, and someone enters your land, and you aren't there to remove them...you lose ownership of your land?

Only in the sense that you can't use it until you take it back.

I can't think of any other way one might physically take possession of land.

But more interestingly...how does one physical take ownership over something like land?

By planting a flag on it, as I recall. So because I have not planted a flag on the land I use, it is not mine.

By removing anyone on it by force one assumes.

So if you're on vacation, and someone enters your land, and you aren't there to remove them...you lose ownership of your land?

I think that land should be held communally, in a trust relationship for future generations. So, you could access resources on that land, but you could not create a situation where your depletion would cause those resources to be unavailable for future generations. You'd have a fiduciary duty to put the interests of future generations first...clearly you'd have to have enough to live on or there WOULD BE NO future generations, so no, you don't have to quietly starve to death under a tree.

Mother Russia thanks you Kneesika. These goddamn communist hippies with their bongs full of vodka.

That bullshit has already been tried and shown to be against human nature. People are terratorial - not much has changed in thousands oy years - the secutiry fence / brick wall etc is just the modern manifestation of piss scenting.

By planting a flag on it, as I recall. So because I have not planted a flag on the land I use, it is not mine.

:D

Perhaps if you urinated around the perimeter?

Only in the sense that you can't use it until you take it back.

I can't think of any other way one might physically take possession of land.

So if I can prevent you from taking back your land, it becomes mine? *sharpens sword and prepares for the sack*

Give me your watch.

:D

Perhaps if you urinated around the perimeter?

I must admit, I do not favor the classical approach to indicating ownership. It's nice and all, but decreases the property values. And of course, my property values are all-important. I could actually make money off the land and help sustain my quality of life by using the land. Pretty great, huh? I'm so civilized.

So if I can prevent you from taking back your land, it becomes mine? *sharpens sword and prepares for the sack*

Give me your watch.

Meh, take it. It's broken anyway.
I was just trying to explain what Socialist Pyrates may have meant by [owning] [his] piece of land in a physical way

Mother Russia thanks you Kneesika. These goddamn communist hippies with their bongs full of vodka.

That bullshit has already been tried and shown to be against human nature. People are terratorial - not much has changed in thousands oy years - the secutiry fence / brick wall etc is just the modern manifestation of piss scenting.

You confuse communalism with communism.

What I referred to is a system of land ownership that existed for tens of thousands of years, and still exists among aboriginal peoples with title to their land.

There was no trust/fiduciary relationship in communist Russia. The state owned the land.

I don't think we have had this debate in ages, so I think we should start it up again. I'm pretty sure the thread will be divided on the issue of whether you can truly own land or property.

I will start off by stating my view, you can and should be allowed to own land in the contractual sense, not in the physical sense. This is what I think the flaw is in many far leftists thinking, they assume that land ownership literally means that the peice of earth is physically and rightfully yours, as if it was your own child, which of course can cause problems easy for the anti land ownership crowd to be perdantic about. To me, land ownership is a contract, a legal and consenting contract saying that you are allowed to use, stay and privatise (or publicise) parts, none or all of the space that the contract allows. Because of the nature of the contract, nobody is allowed to break this contract without a warrent and is completely legally binding. I will go more into this depending on how the debate flows...

How do you draw the line between contractual and physical ownership? Just curious, as I'm not seeing a clear distinction in your post.

You confuse communalism with communism.

What I referred to is a system of land ownership that existed for tens of thousands of years, and still exists among aboriginal peoples with title to their land.

Yes, and how large were these societies?

How do you draw the line between contractual and physical ownership? Just curious, as I'm not seeing a clear distinction in your post.

Ditto.

You confuse communalism with communism.

What I referred to is a system of land ownership that existed for tens of thousands of years, and still exists among aboriginal peoples with title to their land.

There was no trust/fiduciary relationship in communist Russia. The state owned the land.

Communalism is very outdated, most people today are not peasents so do not need land to farm thus rendering it useless anway.

Yes, and how large were these societies?
Sorry, doesn't matter. Because a trust relationship still allows for use of resources...but not an irrecoverable depletion of them. So, if you need to use the trees on the land for any reason...you replant. Pollute? Clean up. Need more space? Build up, not out. It's no less a sustainable system (in fact it MUST be sustainable) than any other.

Essentially, yes.

No seriously. Give me your fucking watch.

And you'd better carry all of your possession on your person at all times...or I will come along and possess them.

So if I can prevent you from taking back your land, it becomes mine? *sharpens sword and prepares for the sack*

Give me your watch.

Essentially, yes.

Communalism is very outdated, most people today are not peasents so do not need land to farm thus rendering it useless anway.

Amazing! Outdated you say? Wow! The over 600 Reservations (and 8 Metis Settlements) as well as surrounding tribal lands in Canada, covering millions of hectares of land, held communally, in a trust/fiduciary capacity are outdated? Why hasn't anyone told us!!!???

Communalism, as I've described it, does not mean what you think it means.

How do you draw the line between contractual and physical ownership? Just curious, as I'm not seeing a clear distinction in your post.

Well it's more to do with why you own it rather then the nature of the ownership. People may see it as illogical to say that the land they find is just rightfully theirs, "finders keepers" ,without any justification but simply because you found it or bought it off someone else. The earth was here millions of years before humans, so they can't suddenly declare that they now posess the land. However I see no reason to see why it is illogical to say that I am able to have a contract declairing that uninvited strangers cannot enter this area without warrent at risk of suffering prosecution from the law etc...

Well it's more to do with why you own it rather then the nature of the ownership. People may see it as illogical to say that the land they find is just rightfully theirs, "finders keepers" ,without any justification but simply because you found it or bought it off someone else. The earth was here millions of years before humans, so they can't suddenly declare that they now posess the land. However I see no reason to see why it is illogical to say that I am able to have a contract declairing that uninvited strangers cannot enter this area without warrent at risk of suffering prosecution from the law etc...

Aboriginal people do not believe we own the land. That does not mean it is up for grabs though. We have certain rights over the land, including the right of exclusion and inclusion. We have rights of use, which are restricted by the trust relationship.

So I'd say this relationship is at it's most simplistic, contractual. That isn't how we think of it of course, but to make it somewhat understandable within the English common law, it'll work for now.

Amazing! Outdated you say? Wow! The over 600 Reservations (and 8 Metis Settlements) as well as surrounding tribal lands in Canada, covering millions of hectares of land, held communally, in a trust/fiduciary capacity are outdated? Why hasn't anyone told us!!!???

Communalism, as I've described it, does not mean what you think it means.

I wonder if he's associating it with only low-tech cultures. That could be the problem, the lack of recognition that communalism would work fine with a high tech culture, though perhaps not with a very heirarchical culture.

Aboriginal people do not believe we own the land. That does not mean it is up for grabs though. We have certain rights over the land, including the right of exclusion and inclusion. We have rights of use, which are restricted by the trust relationship.

So I'd say this relationship is at it's most simplistic, contractual. That isn't how we think of it of course, but to make it somewhat understandable within the English common law, it'll work for now.

But that is essentially the same thing with capitalism, except from the fact that you have freedom to contractually allocate to yourself any peice of land (as long as it is for sale) rather then have it equally divided up among the community (which is unreliable).

In the abstract, ownership of anything is tenuous because life is tenuous. But, I believe we are hardwired for ownership. Survival is about getting and keeping resources and land is an ultimate resource. Most of the revolutions in Europe came down to the fact that the aristocracy held the land and the peasants worked it. The peasants wanted to hold the land they worked. Today, anyone's dream is to own the space they live in, it creates a feeling of security. So yes, I believe in ownership in both the physical and contractual sense.

No seriously. Give me your fucking watch.

And you'd better carry all of your possession on your person at all times...or I will come along and possess them.

Come on, try and take it.
Oh, this isn't an arbitrary relationship. As long as I can defend it, it's mine. And if I have the initiative...well, I suggest you give me yours before this gets messy.

Sorry, doesn't matter. Because a trust relationship still allows for use of resources...but not an irrecoverable depletion of them. So, if you need to use the trees on the land for any reason...you replant. Pollute? Clean up. Need more space? Build up, not out. It's no less a sustainable system (in fact it MUST be sustainable) than any other.

Sorry, it does. I agree with you that it is a better system...just not viable. Size of communities makes a huge difference in effecting ownership and governance. Notice: in history, none of the aboriginal/Native Americans/Inuits/tribes who lived in this kind of a society ever possessed a population driven by sustainable agriculture on the level it is today. Communalism only works on small groups, a few thousand at most.

Come on, try and take it.
Oh, this isn't an arbitrary relationship. As long as I can defend it, it's mine. And if I have the initiative...well, I suggest you give me yours before this gets messy.I'll help Neesika. Give us your watch.
And while you're at it, your house, clothes, car, and cellphone.

I wonder if he's associating it with only low-tech cultures. That could be the problem, the lack of recognition that communalism would work fine with a high tech culture, though perhaps not with a very heirarchical culture.

I think that’s exactly what is happening.

I think an extremely high tech culture would thrive best with this sort of communal/trust ownership. Assuming that the technology in question were developed to be as ‘clean’ as possible…utilizing technology to create biodegradable, clean energy, etc, etc. All clearly possible.

The culture could still be hierarchical, but that hierarchy would not necessarily be related to land ownership. Decisions about land use might be delegated to people at the ‘top’, but they would still be bound by the trust relationship. The social structure need not be egalitarian, but the ownership of the land would be vested in future generations, extending quite possibly into infinity.

But that is essentially the same thing with capitalism, except from the fact that you have freedom to contractually allocate to yourself any peice of land (as long as it is for sale) rather then have it equally divided up among the community (which is unreliable).

No, it’s not essentially the same. You’re missing the most important ingredient which is the trust/fiduciary relationship.

The land would be held communally, in a trust. The community would not itself have title to the land. That title would be vested in future (and possibly unborn) generations. How can the unborn have title in land? Via a legal fiction, just like everything else. So, the land is held in trust. A trust allows the trustee to use the lands in certain ways, and those limits would have to be clearly spelled out…which they are, according to our specific indigenous beliefs. But a trustee in this situation can not sell off the land, destroy it, or make it unlivable for those that actually have title to it (future generations).

Capitalism is a specific economic model. You could describe the communal trust in land through using capitalist terms...just like you could describe it in French, or in a manner that would make sense in Chinese law...but it does not mean is is a capitalist notion. It's a legal/cultural one.

Sorry, doesn't matter. Because a trust relationship still allows for use of resources...but not an irrecoverable depletion of them. So, if you need to use the trees on the land for any reason...you replant. Pollute? Clean up. Need more space? Build up, not out. It's no less a sustainable system (in fact it MUST be sustainable) than any other.

Tell farmers to build up.

Sorry, it does. I agree with you that it is a better system...just not viable. Size of communities makes a huge difference in effecting ownership and governance. Notice: in history, none of the aboriginal/Native Americans/Inuits/tribes who lived in this kind of a society ever possessed a population driven by sustainable agriculture on the level it is today. Communalism only works on small groups, a few thousand at most.

I think you are also falling into the low-tech assumption.

Tell farmers to build up.

One word.

Hydroponics.

I'll help Neesika. Give us your watch.
And while you're at it, your house, clothes, car, and cellphone.

Or, we could simply agree to respect that possession does not necessarily only have validity as long as you can prevent others from taking possession from you.

I can steal your watch...but it does not legally become mine. You still have title to it.

Also, Hydesland, don't make the assumption that communal ownership means the lands are equally divided up among all members. There is not individual ownership of land in our system, at all.

What that means is, those delegated with the power to allocate space, can grant you a spot to live. They are not saying, 'this is mine, I'm giving you a piece'. They are saying, 'this is ours, you can make use of this'. The people allocating space are bound to use that space to the benefit of the trust...and you are bound in that way as well.

One word.

Hydroponics.

Far less yeild, far more expensive. If you have every farmer doing it, food production will decrease too much.

Also, Hydesland, don't make the assumption that communal ownership means the lands are equally divided up among all members. There is not individual ownership of land in our system, at all.

What that means is, those delegated with the power to allocate space, can grant you a spot to live. They are not saying, 'this is mine, I'm giving you a piece'. They are saying, 'this is ours, you can make use of this'. The people allocating space are bound to use that space to the benefit of the trust...and you are bound in that way as well.

But they still make sure that the distribution of each "space they are allowed to use" in the commune is equal. At least in the examples i've, but that is irellevant. Whether it is equal or not, it is not ecenomical for a country with a very large population doing it.

Far less yeild, far more expensive. If you have every farmer doing it, food production will decrease too much.

You are assuming cost/technology at current standards. If there is incentive to be a sustainable as possible, humans are smart. We'll find a way.

But it takes a fundamental shift in worldview from, 'exploit to the full amount possible, and damn the future'...to 'live in a manner that ensures sustainability for this generation and all future generations'.

You are assuming cost/technology at current standards. If there is incentive to be a sustainable as possible, humans are smart. We'll find a way.

But it takes a fundamental shift in worldview from, 'exploit to the full amount possible, and damn the future'...to 'live in a manner that ensures sustainability for this generation and all future generations'.

How are we exploiting to the full amount possible?

But they still make sure that the distribution of each "space they are allowed to use" in the commune is equal. At least in the examples i've, but that is irellevant. Whether it is equal or not, it is not ecenomical for a country with a very large population doing it.

You have no examples, because you have no idea how this works in practice...you've already admitted as such.

The space is not divided up equally. A school takes up more space than a home. A rec centre takes up more space than a school. Farmland takes up more space than all of these things.

A country with a large population absolutely could do it. Build up. If a certain amount of land is needed for production of food and maintenance of resources, then living/working space needs to take up less room, forcing it up instead of out.

The alternative is building out, destroying farmlands and resources, and becoming ultimately totally unsustainable. That is the current global model.

How are we exploiting to the full amount possible?

'To the full extent possible' in this context would be the exploitation of a resource up until the total depletion of that resource.

In a trust relationship, 'to the full extent possible' means 'for our use, in a sustainable manner, ensuring the continued existence of this resource for future generations'.

You have no examples, because you have no idea how this works in practice...you've already admitted as such.


When did I say that?


The space is not divided up equally. A school takes up more space than a home. A rec centre takes up more space than a school. Farmland takes up more space than all of these things.

I meant among the communes, not among the country.


A country with a large population absolutely could do it. Build up. If a certain amount of land is needed for production of food and maintenance of resources, then living/working space needs to take up less room, forcing it up instead of out.

The alternative is building out, destroying farmlands and resources, and becoming ultimately totally unsustainable. That is the current global model.

Land is already distributed like that in capitalist countries, things that need more space take up more space (farm land, quarries etc...) and working and living space is usually built up, that was the way New York was built. The difference in your system is that you don't have the freedom to choose where to live, or posses land for yourself.

I voted for the last two options... I tend to opt for a compromise between the two, with certain inalienable individual rights of access and use combined with a social right to restrict private use beyond a certain limit.

When did I say that? You were under the impression communal ownership was communism, and then you were under the impression that such ownership does not presently exist. That's a good indication that you don't actually know what communal ownership as I'm describing it is.



I meant among the communes, not among the country. What? A the lands in the country would be held in common. Stop using the word commune, it doesn't fit.



Land is already distributed like that in capitalist countries, things that need more space take up more space (farm land, quarries etc...) and working and living space is usually built up, that was the way New York was built. The difference in your system is that you don't have the freedom to choose where to live, or posses land for yourself.

And in communist countries, the same sort of distribution is used, absent freedom to choose where to live or possess land for yourself.

Yet communalism is not capitalism or communism or neesikaism. See how that works?

'To the full extent possible' in this context would be the exploitation of a resource up until the total depletion of that resource.

In a trust relationship, 'to the full extent possible' means 'for our use, in a sustainable manner, ensuring the continued existence of this resource for future generations'.

You don't need to change a country into your version of communalism to stop depletion of resources.

You don't need to change a country into your version of communalism to stop depletion of resources.
What's your point? We're discussing different philosophies of land ownership. I'm describing our aboriginal land ownership. It's another viable option.

A trust relationship with the land ensure sustainability, and is not about depletion of resources, it is about who owns the land. The answer? None of us actually do. The land belongs to the future.

Or, we could simply agree to respect that possession does not necessarily only have validity as long as you can prevent others from taking possession from you.

I can steal your watch...but it does not legally become mine. You still have title to it.Curse you for getting to the point so quickly. :)

You were under the impression communal ownership was communism, and then you were under the impression that such ownership does not presently exist. That's a good indication that you don't actually know what communal ownership as I'm describing it is.


I didn't mention communism at all. I didn't deny that it exists, I just said that it is outdated.


What? A the lands in the country would be held in common. Stop using the word commune, it doesn't fit.


Can you put that another way I don't comprehend. From what I've studied, in a communalist society the country would be divided up into communes where strips of land would be allocated to people residing in the commune in a certain way. Like the serfs or 18th centurty Russia. Your version of communalism seems to be different, one of us has our definitions mixed up.


And in communist countries, the same sort of distribution is used, absent freedom to choose where to live or possess land for yourself.

Yet communalism is not capitalism or communism or neesikaism. See how that works?

Whats different about communalism impart from the justification on why you can use a certain space.

Curse you for getting to the point so quickly. :)

Are you twirling your moustache?

Can you put that another way I don't comprehend. From what I've studied, in a communalist society the country would be divided up into communes where strips of land would be allocated to people residing in the commune in a certain way. Like the serfs or 18th centurty Russia. Your version of communalism seems to be different, one of us has our definitions mixed up. Our version of communalism is aboriginal, not communist (which has a specific set of economic and political principles built into it) Again, I've been describing the trust relationship. How that actually plays out is going to depend on the needs of the community and the needs of the future members of the community. You may have many communities, all working under the same trust relationship. How each community allocates its land, and sustains itself is going to depend on that community. Coastal communities will have different needs/resources than Northern communities.

You could create a trust relationship within a capitalist or communist system. But the values surrounding the trust would be different.


Whats different about communalism impart from the justification on why you can use a certain space.

What is different about communism (from capitalism) apart from the justification on why you can use a certain space? Economic and political ideologies.

Aboriginal communalism is a different economic and political system.

Our version of communalism is aboriginal, not communist (which has a specific set of economic and political principles built into it) Again, I've been describing the trust relationship. How that actually plays out is going to depend on the needs of the community and the needs of the future members of the community. You may have many communities, all working under the same trust relationship. How each community allocates its land, and sustains itself is going to depend on that community. Coastal communities will have different needs/resources than Northern communities.


Ok I understand now, though I always thought of the word communalism as being a broad term describing a way of communal living focused on sustaining the ethnic group rather then a very specific way of acheiving that.


What is different about communism (from capitalism) apart from the justification on why you can use a certain space? Economic and political ideologies.


Capitalism gives you freedom of ownership and work etc... Communism does not.


Aboriginal communalism is a different economic and political system.

Doesn't seem particularly different to primative communism.

Capitalism gives you freedom of ownership and work etc... Communism does not.

Right. Different economic and political ideologies. Exactly what I said.
Doesn't particularly different to communism.How on earth would you know? You have no idea what the specific economic and political values of indigenous peoples are.

First you say it's just like capitalism with small differences, now it's just like communism with small differences? Are capitalism and communism so similar?

Doesn't seem particularly different to primative communism.

You feel qualified to judge an entire economic and political system based on a description of land ownership?

So, because in both communism, and capitalism, there is s system of land ownership (not knowing any further details), I can assume communism and capitalism are the same?

Fascinating.

Currently, there is no comprehensive capitalist system of land ownership with comparable trust/fiduciary obligations. These kinds of obligations can be created on an individual basis, because land ownership is mostly individual, with aspects of public or state ownership. However, the fundamental system of land ownership is vested in individuals.

In our system, the fundamental system of land ownership is invested in the community as a whole.

So your system could become like ours if all individuals agreed to create a trust-like relationship to their land ownership, but as it stands, this is not currently the case, and the differences between your system and ours are vast.

You feel qualified to judge an entire economic and political system based on a description of land ownership?

So, because in both communism, and capitalism, there is s system of land ownership (not knowing any further details), I can assume communism and capitalism are the same?

Fascinating.

Right. Different economic and political ideologies. Exactly what I said.
How on earth would you know? You have no idea what the specific economic and political values of indigenous peoples are.

First you say it's just like capitalism with small differences, now it's just like communism with small differences? Are capitalism and communism so similar?

Firstly, I am not talking about the whole ideology just the land ownership side to it. Secondly you have already admitted that I have distinguished clearly between capitalism and communism in terms of land ownership. The reason I say your version of communalism is more like communism is because unlike in capitalism, you do not seem to have freedom to choose the property you live in or develop it etc... You also do not have the right to privately purchase land. This is typically communist as well. This may not be true of your idea of communalism, but you did imply that that was the case.

A plague aboth your houses! A plague aboth your houses!

*coughs and bleeds because this topic has been so done to death*

you do not seem to have freedom to choose the property you live in

There is no reason why communism could not offer such freedom (within limits, of course... private property over land, however, limits it substantially more, if anything.)

Firstly, I am not talking about the whole ideology just the land ownership side to it. Secondly you have already admitted that I have distinguished clearly between capitalism and communism in terms of land ownership. The reason I say your version of communalism is more like communism is because unlike in capitalism, you do not seem to have freedom to choose the property you live in or develop it etc... You also do not have the right to privately purchase land. This is typically communist as well. This may not be true of your idea of communalism, but you did imply that that was the case.
Just to be clear...if you are ONLY referring to the kind of land ownership, and not the economic or political principles of capitalism or communism, then yes, you can compare land ownership under aboriginal communalism as being closer to communism than capitalism. Just like oil is closer to being water than stone.

But that does not mean they end up being the same. At all. If all you are doing is saying 'individual ownership versus no individual ownership of land', then that's fine. But what a limited, and nearly useless comparison to make, as surface as it is, and you'll frankly understand aboriginal communalism no better for it.

Just to be clear...if you are ONLY referring to the kind of land ownership, and not the economic or political principles of capitalism or communism, then yes, you can compare land ownership under aboriginal communalism as being closer to communism than capitalism. Just like oil is closer to being water than stone.

But that does not mean they end up being the same. At all. If all you are doing is saying 'individual ownership versus no individual ownership of land', then that's fine. But what a limited, and nearly useless comparison to make, as surface as it is, and you'll frankly understand aboriginal communalism no better for it.

But those two principles completely change the way land ownership is handled. It's not just about individual vs no ownership, the way the land is distributed is also typically communist, allocating different sizes of land to different needs, always building up for living spaces etc... So far, the only thing you have shown that is different from communism is the trust situation, but that is merely a justification as to why the land is being distributed the way it is which is what i was getting at before.

But those two principles completely change the way land ownership is handled. It's not just about individual vs no ownership, the way the land is distributed is also typically communist, allocating different sizes of land to different needs, always building up for living spaces. So far, the only thing you have shown that is different from communism is the trust situation, but that is merely a justification as to why the land is being distributed the way it is which is what i was getting at before.

:rolleyes:

Aboriginal communalism predates communism by the way.

The trust situation is not a side note. It is a fundamental component. It doesn't exist in the communist system. Communist land ownership is centralised and allocated thusly. Aboriginal communalism is not centralised, it is diffused. In communism, the state owns the land. In aboriginal communalism, the land belongs to the unborn. Communism allocates resources however it sees fit. Aboriginal communalism allocates resources only in a sustainable manner (in theory, recognising that no system is going to be inherently perfect), recognising that these resources belong to future generations.

In communism, land is allocated according to the needs of the state and the people.

In aboriginal communalism, land is allocated in order to support the living, but in a way as to ensure that the unborn owners of the land will not be deprived of the enjoyment and use of that land.

There is, frankly, a vast difference between the two, which you can only make the same by reducing the two ridiculously.

Aboriginal communalism predates communism by the way.

What kind of "communism"?

:rolleyes:

Aboriginal communalism predates communism by the way.

The trust situation is not a side note. It is a fundamental component. It doesn't exist in the communist system. Communist land ownership is centralised and allocated thusly. Aboriginal communalism is not centralised, it is diffused. In communism, the state owns the land. In aboriginal communalism, the land belongs to the unborn.


I did not say they are THE SAME, just not different. I am aware that communalism is not centralized, but it doesn't make much of a difference to the person living in the commune whoever decides where he lives.


In communism, land is allocated according to the needs of the state and the people.

In aboriginal communalism, land is allocated in order to support the living, but in a way as to ensure that the unborn owners of the land will not be deprived of the enjoyment and use of that land.


Isn't sustainability a fundamental need of the state and people anyway.

What kind of "communism"?

Marxist communism...and the forms that have flowed from that.

Marxist analysis of aboriginal communalism is frankly lacking in relevant worldview.

You could call aboriginal communalism 'primitive communism', but there are connotations there that do not allow for the fact that our system of land ownership is not 'primitive' or stuck in the past...and a total lack of understanding of aboriginal worldview means that the analysis of our land ownership is going to be merely a rough translation.

I'd use the little c communism versus the big C Communism if I thought people here would all get the difference...but they wouldn't.

Um, yes it does. Communism can level a forest to create a farm, for example. Aboriginal communalism must sustain the pre-existing environment and work within it as much as is possible.

Theoretically yes.

Now explain to me how current levels of pollution are sustainable.

So basically, communalism is communism gone green.

I did not say they are THE SAME, just not different. I am aware that communalism is not centralized, but it doesn't make much of a difference to the person living in the commune whoever decides where he lives. Um, yes it does. Communism can level a forest to create a farm, for example. Aboriginal communalism must sustain the pre-existing environment and work within it as much as is possible.



Isn't sustainability a fundamental need of the state and people anyway.Theoretically yes.

Now explain to me how current levels of pollution are sustainable.

Marxist communism...and the forms that have flowed from that.

Marxist communism doesn't propose ownership and distribution of land by a centralized state... nor does it necessarily disregard obligations to future generations.

Communism is communalism gone bad.

I guess I can agree with that.

So basically, communalism is communism gone green.

Communism is communalism gone bad.

Marxist communism doesn't propose ownership and distribution of land by a centralized state... nor does it necessarily disregard obligations to future generations.

Really, when it comes down to it, Marx didn't say anything definitive other than "capitalism is bad." Traditional interpretations of Marxism propose distribution of land to "agricultural armies" organized by the state, but it doesn't imply ownership by the state.

Indeed, the growing trend in Marxism today is left communism, which is opposed to traditional statist Marxism and nationalization as well as capitalism. Above all, most modern Marxists are very ecologically minded and many consider ecological sustainability as great a problem as exploitation under capitalism.

Marxist communism doesn't propose ownership and distribution of land by a centralized state... nor does it necessarily disregard obligations to future generations.

I just don't want to be called a filthy commie, Soheran. I prefer unwashed savage.

I'll help Neesika. Give us your watch.
And while you're at it, your house, clothes, car, and cellphone.

there's one thing about anonymity...demands mean nothing, really...but, if you find me, and try to take my watch, I guarantee you'll head back home in tears and without a watch.

I think you are also falling into the low-tech assumption.

I don't know if it's occurred to you, but the only societies in which this is successful are low-tech.

And you continually mention indigenous peoples, yes it works for them, but precisely why it works is because first they do not possess the technology of major nations and second their populations are sufficiently small that government and economics can exist in such a way that neither adversely affects the other.

I think maybe I'm missing the point here but as a left leaning person I can assure I do own my piece of land in a physical way....

Not at all.

You own government exclusion of others to that land.

I don't know if it's occurred to you, but the only societies in which this is successful are low-tech.

And you continually mention indigenous peoples, yes it works for them, but precisely why it works is because first they do not possess the technology of major nations and second their populations are sufficiently small that government and economics can exist in such a way that neither adversely affects the other.


Riiiight...I forgot we still live in teepees without internet :rolleyes:

Our Reservations are not sparsely populated....we have a birth rate three times higher than the rest of the population.

No, it’s not essentially the same. You’re missing the most important ingredient which is the trust/fiduciary relationship.

The land would be held communally, in a trust. The community would not itself have title to the land. That title would be vested in future (and possibly unborn) generations. How can the unborn have title in land? Via a legal fiction, just like everything else. So, the land is held in trust. A trust allows the trustee to use the lands in certain ways, and those limits would have to be clearly spelled out…which they are, according to our specific indigenous beliefs. But a trustee in this situation can not sell off the land, destroy it, or make it unlivable for those that actually have title to it (future generations).
To me it sounds like an alternative format of property ownership, rather than an economic system in and of itself. Certainly, it could work under both capitalism and communism. I have some questions though.

To begin with, how do the future-born justify their claim to the land? They do not exist, therefore they can make no claim. If the living have no right to claim the land, whence does it come from? You said it's a legal fiction, but one could also say present property arrangements are a legal fiction, and they would need offer no further justification. That would be unsatisfactory though.

Moreover, how are the interests of the unborn determined? You say that the trustee of the land could not destroy it in any way. However, what constitutes something of value is subjective. Sure, burning the land down will almost always be considered destructive use of the land. But say you build some appartment building on it. No one wants to rent from you, and the building is rather grotty. Is this form of malinvestment subsumed under the term of misuse of land? Because clearly, it will cost money to repair the damage done. And anyway, how could this be determined ex ante construction of the appartment building? What happens to buildings on land after one's death?

Capitalism is a specific economic model. You could describe the communal trust in land through using capitalist terms...just like you could describe it in French, or in a manner that would make sense in Chinese law...but it does not mean is is a capitalist notion. It's a legal/cultural one.
The way I see it is that private ownership of all goods remains, except in land. If to put it in capitalist terms, one could say that the contract between buyer and seller specifies certain actions that may not take place, and so on.

Also, Hydesland, don't make the assumption that communal ownership means the lands are equally divided up among all members. There is not individual ownership of land in our system, at all.
How is land divided up then? Furthermore, how is more land acquired? Who homesteads it? Say I want to open up a business and will require more land, or would like to expand my house... how would I go about getting permission for more?

I'm interested in how alternative theories of land-ownership could be melded with capitalism, so feel free to go into as much detail as you please.


To the OP: How the hell can one own land in contract only? Contracts (more appositely, titles) represent claims to physical, tangible goods usually, as is the case of land. Unless this has been answered already, could you explain the dichotomy?

To me it sounds like an alternative format of property ownership, rather than an economic system in and of itself. Certainly, it could work under both capitalism and communism. I have some questions though. Oooh FINALLY! Something intelligent to deal with! But first, note that I mention that this part of communalism is strictly dealing with property ownership...the economic and political system of aboriginal communalism is much more than property ownership or property/resource allocation.

To begin with, how do the future-born justify their claim to the land? They do not exist, therefore they can make no claim. Perhaps under your system. For us, it's a natural part of the planning process...we look ahead to the next seven generations. Of course, as the next generation takes over, they look ahead seven generations, and so forth. It's not about the unborn bringing a claim into court...it's about a fundamental trust with the unborn to ensure there is enough for them to live on. It's enforced because we say it will be. A member of our community who does something contrary to that will be brought to justice by the community in the name of those to come.


If the living have no right to claim the land, whence does it come from? Even in English common law, the trustee can have various claims to the land he or she is holding in trust. Of course we would need to be able to sustain ourselves, or we'd risk endangering the unborn further (either by causing them not to be born, or being born into unhealthy circumstances). Our claim to the land is usufructory, and also a kind of stewardship. We are active, not passive trustees.



You said it's a legal fiction, but one could also say present property arrangements are a legal fiction, and they would need offer no further justification. That would be unsatisfactory though. Unsatisfactory in what way? The current legal fiction is that the Crown owns all the land, and you have access to various estates in land. You start with a fiction and you build on it. That fiction is based on a particular worldview, which is, in iteself, not inherently right or wrong.

Moreover, how are the interests of the unborn determined?
That is always the difficulty in a trust situation. There is no hard and fast way...so the trustees have to use their best judgment...one way of doing this is to put the needs of future generations above the needs of those currently living. No, that doesn't mean letting people die, or starve, or whatever...but it does mean leaving enough behind to last.



You say that the trustee of the land could not destroy it in any way. However, what constitutes something of value is subjective. Sure, burning the land down will almost always be considered destructive use of the land. But say you build some appartment building on it. No one wants to rent from you, and the building is rather grotty. Is this form of malinvestment subsumed under the term of misuse of land? Because clearly, it will cost money to repair the damage done. And anyway, how could this be determined ex ante construction of the appartment building? What happens to buildings on land after one's death? Hahahha, all good questions, and I don't have bright line rules for you. In a trust situation, certain use can be made of the land, even permanant alterations, depending on the arrangement. The community would have to decide these issues, and they'd be making best guesses for the future. Sometimes they'll mess up, and sometimes they won't. But the idea is to plan far ahead...don't sell off land to make a quick buck when it means the children to come will have less to sustain them. Don't so horribly pollute your water that you need to have it trucked in. Don't just build a casino and then use the money to buy trucks :P...invest it in Education, or whatever.


The way I see it is that private ownership of all goods remains, except in land. If to put it in capitalist terms, one could say that the contract between buyer and seller specifies certain actions that may not take place, and so on. In our system, property ownership is a bit more complicated that this, and varies from nation to nation. There is individual ownership, but less than in a capitalist system. Certain items belong to certain people based on status (being a brother-in-law, being the niece of the first daughter etc), or specialised and only allowed to some (certain medicines/knowledge/intellectual property) etc. And other things can be owned by anyone, regardless of status.

How is land divided up then? Furthermore, how is more land acquired? Who homesteads it? Say I want to open up a business and will require more land, or would like to expand my house... how would I go about getting permission for more? Again, this will depend nation to nation. In the East, where longhouses were the norm, extended families would live together, and additions would be built as needed. Clearly permission would be required as space became sparse...hence my belief that we'd have to eventually build up.

Each nation has it's own form of consensus building. The Anishnabe have the Clan Mothers get together and represent each Clan they head. They would allocate resources, with less chance of particular favouritism towards a single clan because all the clans would have a say. But the point is consensus. The Clan Mothers would come back to the Clan and get their feedback, then go back to the council. People can disagree...but the point is to negotiate until it is settled. It gets easier with practice :D



I'm interested in how alternative theories of land-ownership could be melded with capitalism, so feel free to go into as much detail as you please. Okay, well I've given some examples, but I really think that within a capitalist system, it would be possible to create the same sort of trust/fiduciary relationship...it would just need a number of individuals to get together and set it up, write up the relevant terms and restrictions, and live it. It would be easier if the worldview behind our ownership was better understood...but it's not absolutely essential. The main thing is the concept of stewardship, especially in terms of the environment and resources. It's not as though everyone living in a capitalist society thinks only of themselves, and their lifetime...but the system itself is generally set up to maximise benefit in those terms. So to thwart that, people could take an active role in creating a new way of dealing with property ownership that would ensure that the future generations are provided for (not made rich, not coddled...but given equal access to resources as we). It might be hard to figure out how that would work, but we could help with the underlying philosophy at least...details up to the people involved.

One thing I forgot to mention...do you remember my "The Earth has Agency" thread? One thing I was trying to get across there is that in our system, we have also taken it upon ourselves to speak on behalf of the earth. So we speak for the unborn humans, and we speak for the earth itself. We actually (depending on the society) have people who specialise in advocating from the position of what would be best for the earth...acknowledging that we are part of the earth, and need to live as well. It may sound odd, but that too is becoming integrated into recent Western laws in a limited fashion.

As long as you can defend it, it is your territory for pretty much anything you wish to do. :) But you can't literally OWN a piece of the Earth.

SNIP

You only own your land if we accept that you do.

EDIT: You being the "owner" and us being "the others..."

Oooh FINALLY! Something intelligent to deal with! But first, note that I mention that this part of communalism is strictly dealing with property ownership...the economic and political system of aboriginal communalism is much more than property ownership or property/resource allocation.
Very well.

Unsatisfactory in what way? The current legal fiction is that the Crown owns all the land, and you have access to various estates in land. You start with a fiction and you build on it. That fiction is based on a particular worldview, which is, in iteself, not inherently right or wrong.

What I meant was what would constitute the philosophical basis of assigning such a right to future generations. Is it an inherent cultural feature of native American societies, sort of like the Divine Right was seen as the justification for regal administration of society?


Hahahha, all good questions, and I don't have bright line rules for you. In a trust situation, certain use can be made of the land, even permanant alterations, depending on the arrangement. The community would have to decide these issues, and they'd be making best guesses for the future. Sometimes they'll mess up, and sometimes they won't. But the idea is to plan far ahead...don't sell off land to make a quick buck when it means the children to come will have less to sustain them. Don't so horribly pollute your water that you need to have it trucked in. Don't just build a casino and then use the money to buy trucks :P...invest it in Education, or whatever.
It makes sense to me - in fact, it's almost exactly like inheritance in the form of a trust-fund. The person leaving the fortune behind may stipulate conditions the would-be heir must fulfill to acquire the property, or even hold on to it.

In our system, property ownership is a bit more complicated that this, and varies from nation to nation. There is individual ownership, but less than in a capitalist system. Certain items belong to certain people based on status (being a brother-in-law, being the niece of the first daughter etc), or specialised and only allowed to some (certain medicines/knowledge/intellectual property) etc. And other things can be owned by anyone, regardless of status.
I suppose a capitalist society could go further than this and assign ownership rights to any item (other than land).

Okay, well I've given some examples, but I really think that within a capitalist system, it would be possible to create the same sort of trust/fiduciary relationship...it would just need a number of individuals to get together and set it up, write up the relevant terms and restrictions, and live it. It would be easier if the worldview behind our ownership was better understood...but it's not absolutely essential. The main thing is the concept of stewardship, especially in terms of the environment and resources. It's not as though everyone living in a capitalist society thinks only of themselves, and their lifetime...but the system itself is generally set up to maximise benefit in those terms. So to thwart that, people could take an active role in creating a new way of dealing with property ownership that would ensure that the future generations are provided for (not made rich, not coddled...but given equal access to resources as we). It might be hard to figure out how that would work, but we could help with the underlying philosophy at least...details up to the people involved.
Indeed. It'd require considerable imagination to "marry" the two together. That said, a lot of property integrated into the current system is in fact the result of conquests, not productive efforts. It would take substantial readjustment to bring about a capitalist system based on trustee-ownership of land. That isn't to say it would be impossible. How property ought to be held and acquired isn't carved in stone.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain. Do you know of any works on the matter of aboriginal traditions on property?

Or, we could simply agree to respect that possession does not necessarily only have validity as long as you can prevent others from taking possession from you.

I can steal your watch...but it does not legally become mine. You still have title to it.

That's still a distinction that's ultimately based in force -- either by coercion and peer pressure, or actual physical enforcement.

Great thread by the way.

Very well.
What I meant was what would constitute the philosophical basis of assigning such a right to future generations. Is it an inherent cultural feature of native American societies, sort of like the Divine Right was seen as the justification for regal administration of society? Ah, I see! Sorry, wasn't clear. It's an inherent feature...I've not seen any variation on this from nation to nation, not from the Mapuche of southern Chile and Argentina to the Inuit. I think it is because our worldview, our sense of time, is not linear, but cyclical. It only makes sense to think of those to come, just as we think of those who have passed. Among some of us, those who are to come and those who have passed exist alongside those who occupy the present.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain. Do you know of any works on the matter of aboriginal traditions on property?
Brian Slattery has done extensive work on aboriginal laws and rights. John Borrows would be another one to look into. I can't think of anything off hand specifically dealing with property rights, though I know there is scholarly work on conceptions of property. The problem is, the overview I've given you here is very incomplete, very surface. I've provided you with a translation of sorts, but it is rough at best. I've defined our relationship within an ownership paradigm, roughly equivalent to a trust...but we don't see it that way within our own culture. Because of our relationship to the land, and our place within it, we can no more own the land than a bear can. We can claim territories, and exploit resources, but there is no ownership in exactly the way you'd conceive of it in the Western system. But without more of an understanding of our worldview and culture, anything more than this loose translation would either be totally nonsensical to you, or would give you the wrong idea (that because we don't believe you can own the land, that we have no claim to it, ha ha, shitty for us:D).

That's still a distinction that's ultimately based in force -- either by coercion and peer pressure, or actual physical enforcement.

Great thread by the way.

True, but the second you are dealing with more than one human, property ownership becomes an issue of whatever system the humans in question bang out between them.

Ah, I see! Sorry, wasn't clear.
I wasn't quite sure how to phrase it. :)

Brian Slattery has done extensive work on aboriginal laws and rights. John Borrows would be another one to look into. I can't think of anything off hand specifically dealing with property rights, though I know there is scholarly work on conceptions of property.

I have some works on property, namely by Jeremy Waldron, but he doesn't go much into non-Western conceptions of property. I'll give those books you mentioned a look. If you know of any works on property more generally that deal with native customs those would be good too. :)

The problem is, the overview I've given you here is very incomplete, very surface. I've provided you with a translation of sorts, but it is rough at best. I've defined our relationship within an ownership paradigm, roughly equivalent to a trust...but we don't see it that way within our own culture. Because of our relationship to the land, and our place within it, we can no more own the land than a bear can. We can claim territories, and exploit resources, but there is no ownership in exactly the way you'd conceive of it in the Western system.
Well with regard to property in land, it might make sense, as I said, to adopt such a view as to how it is acquired and held. Obviously it'd need a lot of reworking to fit into a Western system, especially a capitalist one. Namely how resource appropriation would take place... It might work if meshed with utilitarian theory, perhaps even natural rights theory.

But without more of an understanding of our worldview and culture, anything more than this loose translation would either be totally nonsensical to you, or would give you the wrong idea (that because we don't believe you can own the land, that we have no claim to it, ha ha, shitty for us:D).
As I said, I'd appreciate any insights into it. But given Western tradition with the Divine Right of Kings and Locke's theistic argumentation behind the homesteading proviso, it's not all too alien.

Riiiight...I forgot we still live in teepees without internet :rolleyes:

You do? Oh, wait...no, I didn't say that. You certainly have a way with preconceptions about other people's views.

Yes, the indigenous populations do not possess the technological base of most modern, developed nations. And what they do have is not a result of their own ingenuity. No, you don't live in tepees without internet, and to assume that internet and housing are the only, indeed even significant, measures of technological and economic capability is asinine. Let me put it this way: What significant role do the technological and economic capabilities of indigenous reservations play in the international market, even the national market? If you say it is significant, you're fooling yourself, but I leave the question to you.

Our Reservations are not sparsely populated....we have a birth rate three times higher than the rest of the population.

Okay, so you're growing. Fast. I notice, however, you didn't use real numbers to support your argument; growth rate does not equate to total population. Now check out the actual numbers and compare to the rest of the population, and compare those to the populations of developed nations around the world. And then consider why every single other developed nation uses a system other than tribal communalism. I'll give you a hint: population matters. Immensely.

You do? Oh, wait...no, I didn't say that. You certainly have a way with preconceptions about other people's views.

Yes, the indigenous populations do not possess the technological base of most modern, developed nations. And what they do have is not a result of their own ingenuity. No, you don't live in tepees without internet, and to assume that internet and housing are the only, indeed even significant, measures of technological and economic capability is asinine. Let me put it this way: What significant role do the technological and economic capabilities of indigenous reservations play in the international market, even the national market? If you say it is significant, you're fooling yourself, but I leave the question to you. The assinine assumption being made here is that aboriginal people are low tech, and incapable of cultural adaptation.

We are not frozen in time. When guns were introduced, we made good use of them. As technology grows, we are perfectly capable of integrating that technology into our lives, according to our belief systems. Shockingly, amazingly, our own traditional knowledge is also being shared across cultures. Traditional medicines, even traditional building methods etc. Low tech? Yes. Less valuable? Hardly.

You flat out stated that our property laws would only work in a low tech society. That is utter bullshit. Because what we are discussing here, what you have so completely missed, is a SYSTEM that exists, independent of technology. Technology did not create the underlying philosophy of the capitalist system. It had nothing to do with the fundamental principles of property ownership in the English common-law system. Technology is a TOOL, not a paradigm one can build laws upon.

Our method of property ownership is no less workable than any other, and technology has nothing to do with it, except to highlight your eurocentric view that 'more tech' means 'a more valid system'.

Check your ignorance.


Okay, so you're growing. Fast. I notice, however, you didn't use real numbers to support your argument; growth rate does not equate to total population. Now check out the actual numbers and compare to the rest of the population, and compare those to the populations of developed nations around the world. And then consider why every single other developed nation uses a system other than tribal communalism. I'll give you a hint: population matters. Immensely.

No, population doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does.

The evolution of English common law is rooted in feudalism. Yes, it goes back further than even that, but some of the most important changes to the common law legal system were borne out of the circumstances of the feudal system. To this day, that flavour is easily found in even the most contemporary property laws.

The property laws of China are rooted in their own particular historical circumstances. And they do not in the slightest resemble English common law.

Among aboriginal people, there is incredible variation in terms of societal organisation...agricultural societies to nomads. Yet we all have essentially the same property system.

What that boils down to is not population. It's worldview, and each of these worldviews is absolutely workable.

What I am talking about is a blend. Choices. There are other ways to do things, but you arrogantly dismiss them believing blindly in your cultural superiority. Well that's fine, you do yourself more harm than good, but that is your choice.

For those of us who are not afraid of learning from other cultures, there is a wealth of knowledge out there, a wealth of choices with which to build something more suitable to our particular circumstances. Not once have I tried to insist that the aboriginal system of property ownership is superior, but the only thing you have done throughout this conversation is discussed how inferior it is to your own system of property (one that frankly, I doubt you have a very clear understanding of), citing technology, population, whatever. That says more about you than it does about the systems in question.

The assinine assumption being made here is that aboriginal people are low tech, and incapable of cultural adaptation.

We are not frozen in time. When guns were introduced, we made good use of them. As technology grows, we are perfectly capable of integrating that technology into our lives, according to our belief systems. Shockingly, amazingly, our own traditional knowledge is also being shared across cultures. Traditional medicines, even traditional building methods etc. Low tech? Yes. Less valuable? Hardly.

You flat out stated that our property laws would only work in a low tech society. That is utter bullshit. Because what we are discussing here, what you have so completely missed, is a SYSTEM that exists, independent of technology. Technology did not create the underlying philosophy of the capitalist system. It had nothing to do with the fundamental principles of property ownership in the English common-law system. Technology is a TOOL, not a paradigm one can build laws upon.

Our method of property ownership is no less workable than any other, and technology has nothing to do with it, except to highlight your eurocentric view that 'more tech' means 'a more valid system'.

Check your ignorance.



No, population doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does.

The evolution of English common law is rooted in feudalism. Yes, it goes back further than even that, but some of the most important changes to the common law legal system were borne out of the circumstances of the feudal system. To this day, that flavour is easily found in even the most contemporary property laws.

The property laws of China are rooted in their own particular historical circumstances. And they do not in the slightest resemble English common law.

Among aboriginal people, there is incredible variation in terms of societal organisation...agricultural societies to nomads. Yet we all have essentially the same property system.

What that boils down to is not population. It's worldview, and each of these worldviews is absolutely workable.

What I am talking about is a blend. Choices. There are other ways to do things, but you arrogantly dismiss them believing blindly in your cultural superiority. Well that's fine, you do yourself more harm than good, but that is your choice.

For those of us who are not afraid of learning from other cultures, there is a wealth of knowledge out there, a wealth of choices with which to build something more suitable to our particular circumstances. Not once have I tried to insist that the aboriginal system of property ownership is superior, but the only thing you have done throughout this conversation is discussed how inferior it is to your own system of property (one that frankly, I doubt you have a very clear understanding of), citing technology, population, whatever. That says more about you than it does about the systems in question.

Whoa, I'm the ignorant one? Please, show me any of the places where I made any of those statements of which you accuse me. Oh, I have learned a lot from this argument. I've learned plenty how you are so obsessed with an inferiority complex that you automatically assume that a comparison of different economic systems is a slight against aboriginal peoples. Fine; arrogance and close-mindedness do nothing to contribute to debate. Not once have I suggested that the communal system is inferior; never have I even implied that aboriginal cultures are less significant. You treat me like a child, and yet yourself behave like one. Get over yourself and your inferiority complex, get over the fact that because I happen to see things realistically and not in some alter-world where communality is applicable to all societies, when in fact history has shown us that is simply not true.

The assinine assumption being made here is that aboriginal people are low tech, and incapable of cultural adaptation.

You know why I assume that? Because it happens to be true. Indigenous societies are not on par technologically or, economically, or militarily with any developed nation.

We are not frozen in time. When guns were introduced, we made good use of them. As technology grows, we are perfectly capable of integrating that technology into our lives, according to our belief systems. Shockingly, amazingly, our own traditional knowledge is also being shared across cultures. Traditional medicines, even traditional building methods etc. Low tech? Yes. Less valuable? Hardly.

Since when does technology become worth? I love how you fabricate arguments that I never made to suit your own preconceived ideas about what I am thinking.


You flat out stated that our property laws would only work in a low tech society. That is utter bullshit.

Find me an example, to prove your point. Can't? Didn't think so.


Because what we are discussing here, what you have so completely missed, is a SYSTEM that exists, independent of technology. Technology did not create the underlying philosophy of the capitalist system. It had nothing to do with the fundamental principles of property ownership in the English common-law system. Technology is a TOOL, not a paradigm one can build laws upon.

Oh the system exists, I'm not debating that. However it is only feasible--and history has shown us this--in societies with sufficient technological and economic deficit. Despite what you may think, technology, particularly today, is integral to, and not independent of, society.

And no one's talking of building laws upon technology (except you, of course.) It is indeed a tool, but applying a communal form of government to modern developed societies where none exists is absurd. It is impractical; with a population as large as it is, there are going to be leaders, there are going to be owners, and there will be workers. Any population of sufficient size will naturally develop hierarchy. Disagree? Prove me wrong. Unfortunately for you, history speaks to the truth of this.


Our method of property ownership is no less workable than any other, and technology has nothing to do with it, except to highlight your eurocentric view that 'more tech' means 'a more valid system'.

Oh, it's plenty workable, as I've conceded. You just fail to realize that the only instances in which it did (and does) work are in small, tribal based societies that make use of technology through adaptation, not innovation.

Check your ignorance.

Check your own.




No, population doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does.

On the contrary. Population is very nearly everything. Did you get those numbers? As I stated above, any population of sufficient size naturally develops an hierarchy, and precludes any communally-based property system.



The evolution of English common law is rooted in feudalism. Yes, it goes back further than even that, but some of the most important changes to the common law legal system were borne out of the circumstances of the feudal system. To this day, that flavour is easily found in even the most contemporary property laws.

The property laws of China are rooted in their own particular historical circumstances. And they do not in the slightest resemble English common law.

Right. I agree.


Among aboriginal people, there is incredible variation in terms of societal organisation...agricultural societies to nomads. Yet we all have essentially the same property system.

Check the bolded part. Now consider: the aboriginal peoples survive on a subsistence basis, first in hunter-gatherer societies and then in adequate agricultural production to suit the needs of the tribe. Now they subsist off of the society in which they live. They all have similar property systems because it works best for that size population, that particular tribal-based government structure.



What that boils down to is not population. It's worldview, and each of these worldviews is absolutely workable.

And population has a tremendous amount to do with any transformation from worldview to operational property system.


What I am talking about is a blend. Choices. There are other ways to do things, but you arrogantly dismiss them believing blindly in your cultural superiority. Well that's fine, you do yourself more harm than good, but that is your choice.

For those of us who are not afraid of learning from other cultures, there is a wealth of knowledge out there, a wealth of choices with which to build something more suitable to our particular circumstances. Not once have I tried to insist that the aboriginal system of property ownership is superior, but the only thing you have done throughout this conversation is discussed how inferior it is to your own system of property (one that frankly, I doubt you have a very clear understanding of), citing technology, population, whatever. That says more about you than it does about the systems in question.

On the bolded part: You are wrong. I have not espoused support for any specific form of property ownership, but that doesn't matter to you, because you see the world, or at least this argument, one way. Neither have I implied, explicitly or otherwise, that the indigenous system is inferior. But again, that doesn't matter to you because that would interfere with your own preconceived notions of what is being argued. You fabricate arguments to suit your purpose, getting all worked up into a lather about a statement that wasn't said, an implication that exists only in your mind. That says a tremendous amount about you.

Emotions very rarely win arguments. I urge you to take a step back and consider the argument from a less close-minded perspective and consider that a critical viewpoint, in particular one that doubts the practicality of implementing such a system as exercised by the aboriginal and indigenous populations on the rest of the world, is not a condemnation.

I have learned much in here. And for the record, I am not against a communal system. In fact, I prefer it to the current one. But what I am arguing is a matter of the practicality of its implementation, not the system itself.

First of all, let me ask you straight out. Do you honestly not see the colonial assumptions you are making here? You talk about 'history', 'technology' and 'developed nations', as though you honestly believe there is an inherent superiority in your system, proven by these three terms. While at the same time, you deny that there is any superiority involved, just fact. You are, with everything you have written saying, 'yes but, our way is BETTER'.

It's okay for you to prefer your system. That's natural. But don't let it blind you to the flaws in that system, and prevent you from looking outward to fix them. Hey, it may not work for you. But that doesn't mean it can't work, period.

You are absolutely, flat out, denying the possibility of a sustainable system. Because when it boils down to it, that is what I am discussing. A system founded on the concept of sustainability...not on the concept of profit, not even on the concept of the 'greater good'. You look at aboriginal societies where this worldview is most dominant, and say, 'well hell...they didn't develop the atom bomb, so clearly that system isn't workable on a larger level'. (And because you are missing it, no, you didn't actually say that. I'm applying your standpoint here.)

Another question. Do you not realise that aboriginal societies currently exist IN DEVELOPED NATIONS? Yes, many of our communities are poor, and because of socio-economic reasons, we do not necessarily have the same access to all goods and services that a middle-class person would. But we are not living in little islands adrift from development. If you want to look at WHY we are still in such poor conditions, you need to go back to the relationship we have had with the Canadian state, and the various factors that have forced us into marginalisation. It is NOT the case that our system of property ownership is the reason. The fact that we are minorities in North America is not because of our system of ownership. So you know what? Damn rights I can get you population stats (http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Analytic/companion/abor/canada.cfm). But they are absolutely fucking meaningless, unless you believe that either:

a) our population is a result of our system of property ownership (as in, it has somehow limited our growth)
or
b) once our population grows, our system will no longer be tenable.

You talk about moving from a hunter/gatherer society, to an agricultural one and so on, as though there is an inevitable progression...a ladder to climb until a culture can be considered 'developed'. This eurocentric perception is woven through every single response you've given me, so yes, I am focusing on it. Because while you mouth platitudes about learning things, you are firm in your belief that 'it's a nice idea, but it could never work', and you justify it from every angle. I'm not even sure you realise you are doing it.

So what's the point of learning something new, if you insist it can not be used? THAT is my point. I'm not calling you some racist supremacist who hates natives. But I am calling you on your biases that defeat the entire purpose of this conversation...which is to consider alternatives. Really consider them.

You doubt it could be implemented...but you have not challenged a single assumption that has led to your doubt, because you are not looking at it for what it is. Boil it down again. Leave aside what you think you know about aboriginal people, how we lived historically, and how we live now. What you are left with is a set of principles. A foundation on which to build a system. This system is no less complex, no less suited to large populations that it is to small ones, highly technological societies or very rustic ones.

I am not, for one second, suggesting that non-aboriginals attempt to adopt aboriginal culture. Ugh, it's scary when people try. I just hate the idea that a society, as a feature of moving 'up the ladder' inevitably must develop into something as bloated, unsustainable, and wasteful as the current Western system. No. NOT the pinnacle.

You know why I assume that? Because it happens to be true. Indigenous societies are not on par technologically or, economically, or militarily with any developed nation. Read again the statement you are replying to.

The asinine assumption being made here is that aboriginal people are low tech, and incapable of cultural adaptation.
We have adapted JUST FINE to technology and new economic systems. There is not a single sovereign indigenous nation (with our aboriginal worldview) in existence, so no shit we don't have a military of our own. We join the military of the nation state within which we live.

So tell me again how we are low tech, and incapable of cultural adaptation.



Since when does technology become worth? I love how you fabricate arguments that I never made to suit your own preconceived ideas about what I am thinking. That you focus so intently on technology means that you hold it to be an indicator of the worth of the worldview of the culture in question. If that is not true, please explain to me then why you insist on bringing it up within this context.



Find me an example, to prove your point. Can't? Didn't think so. Hahahaha...you haven't been reading the thread?

Every single Reservation...all 600 of them in Canada, is based on our property system. Again, we're talking about millions of hectares of land, all totalled. Now, again, unless you want to blame our current socio-economic situation on our worldview, and totally disregard the historical circumstances that have led to this, you need to explain how I didn't just give you an example. Because we are not hunting with bows and arrows baby. It's not as though Western housing and the internet is the only technology available to us on the Reserve.



Oh the system exists, I'm not debating that. However it is only feasible--and history has shown us this--in societies with sufficient technological and economic deficit. Despite what you may think, technology, particularly today, is integral to, and not independent of, society. See? Finally you make your premise clear. Only low tech societies can use our property system.

Now why is that so? Because historically, only low tech societies have had it? And what happens as we become more populated and more high tech? Magically at some stage of 'development', our worldview will shift and more closely parallel yours? Because that is NOT happening. Quite the opposite.

If our system says, as a fundamental principle, 'don't use up all the resources, make sure there is enough to sustain the next seven generations'...explain to me how technology prevents that from being possible. Because in my mind...technology can in fact be a perfect tool for ensuring that.

And no one's talking of building laws upon technology (except you, of course.) It is indeed a tool, but applying a communal form of government Let me stop you right there. I have not spoken of a communal form of government. I have spoken only of a communal system of property ownership. However, if you want to break that down further, what we are truly discussing is a sustainable system of property ownership based on a trust concept. That is entirely workable within a system of private ownership. It may work better within a communal system of government, but such is not absolutely necessary. There are already inherent limitations on your rights to property within the English property system, based on the type of estate you have. Integrating aboriginal principles would only change the focus of those restrictions.

In fact, I could, with my fee simple, create a contract that would bind the next owner to such a trust system, though at present, I could not tie that trust to owners yet to be born (to the seventh generation) etc etc. The law however is flexible, and were some changes made, I COULD tie it in that way, in perpetuity. It would create a new kind of estate, with restrictions similar to what aboriginal people impose upon themselves. No need for a communal government.


to modern developed societies where none exists is absurd. It is impractical; with a population as large as it is, there are going to be leaders, there are going to be owners, and there will be workers. Any population of sufficient size will naturally develop hierarchy. Disagree? Prove me wrong. Unfortunately for you, history speaks to the truth of this. This part needs not be addressed. There is no inherent need for a non-hierarchical system to implement our kind of property ownership. Restrictions could be created contractually, rather than on an ad hoc basis by community members.



Oh, it's plenty workable, as I've conceded. You just fail to realize that the only instances in which it did (and does) work are in small, tribal based societies that make use of technology through adaptation, not innovation. Sorry...do you have a point here? Other than 'you guys didn't invent anything cool, so clearly your system of land ownership is bunk, and the reason for that lack of coolness'.


On the contrary. Population is very nearly everything. Did you get those numbers? As I stated above, any population of sufficient size naturally develops an hierarchy, and precludes any communally-based property system. Ah, here we have the ladder theory of development. In a large country, the community-based decision making would have to be replaced by something more workable. But the communal system of property ownership would not be negated by that fact.


Check the bolded part. Now consider: the aboriginal peoples survive on a subsistence basis, first in hunter-gatherer societies and then in adequate agricultural production to suit the needs of the tribe. Now they subsist off of the society in which they live. Ex-fucking-cuse me? WE SUBSIST OFF THE SOCIETY IN WHICH WE LIVE? And you got all fucking outraged that I was accusing you of arrogance and superiority? Well no wonder. You have essentially called us parasites. Unreal.


And population has a tremendous amount to do with any transformation from worldview to operational property system. Ah, another nice assumption based on the ladder theory of development. And yet below you pretend that you haven't espoused support for any specific form of property ownership. You have basically said that population determines the property system. Small population = one type of property system, big population = different type of property system. Does it follow that small population = one type of worldview and big population = another type of worldview? So, development is charted...if only we could read the map properly.




On the bolded part: You are wrong. I have not espoused support for any specific form of property ownership,
Yes, you have. You have labelled our system as unworkable based on how our societies were, on our population, and on our level of technological advancement. Are we subsistence hunters now? Oh wait...no...we're parasites on the society in which we live. Right, right, I forgot.

*pictures native people 'hunting and gathering' in WalMart. Subsisting off harvested packaged goods, and the fallen carcass of the WalMart greeter.*


but that doesn't matter to you, because you see the world, or at least this argument, one way. Neither have I implied, explicitly or otherwise, that the indigenous system is inferior. I beg to differ. That is ALL you have done. You have put us on the bottom rung of your ladder of development, and smugly insisted that if only we BE LIKE YOU, we'll ascend to your level. It is woven through every single thing you have said here.

It's okay if it's not a property system you want. It's okay if you prefer something else. But if that's the case, don't pretend your mind is open. "Those people used it, they aren't people I want to emulate, therefore the system itself is no good".

THAT is your argument. And it's a shit argument.