NationStates Jolt Archive

What in your opinion generates the greatest amount of personal freedom, private property, communal property, or no property rights for anyone?

What generates the greatest amount of freedom for society, private property, communal property, or no property rights for anyone?

Does a person have the right to the product of their labor generated from their own land, the communal land, or land that no one owns?

Who owns land? How did they come to own it? How did that person come to own it? Who owns the resources on it?

I think the idea is communal property is geared for consumption rather than profit, if done in a democratic fashion with representative worker electives from the whole community, it can work, Kibbutz and Spain showed this. I personally think state owned land which is loaned to people for certain uses would be best, in which subsidies for equipment on the land and welfare incentives for the families would work and allow autonomous elected unions to run the land with only loose state overview, so as to create efficiency, but the actual occupations and what the land was used for would be directed by the state. So at a local level the workers could decide the micro issues and macro issues at a more broad central level. The land would be the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity.

What in your opinion generates the greatest amount of personal freedom, private property, communal property, or no property rights for anyone?

What generates the greatest amount of freedom for society, private property, communal property, or no property rights for anyone?

Does a person have the right to the product of their labor generated from their own land, the communal land, or land that no one owns?

Who owns land? How did they come to own it? How did that person come to own it? Who owns the resources on it?

Bloody good question.

One I don't really know the answer to, but much like most things I suspect that a mix of all three wold be the best. Lean too far one way or the other and enviariably somebody suffers.

What in your opinion generates the greatest amount of personal freedom, private property, communal property, or no property rights for anyone?
None of the above as personal freedom isn't tied into land ownership.

What generates the greatest amount of freedom for society, private property, communal property, or no property rights for anyone?
Again, none of the above, people have "owned" their land and still have not been free.

Does a person have the right to the product of their labor generated from their own land, the communal land, or land that no one owns?
Depends upon the labor I suppose and the land in question. Growing veggies is one thing, growing narcotics now...

Who owns land? How did they come to own it? How did that person come to own it? Who owns the resources on it?
Let me see: All land is owned by the person who bought it and can show title to it, their ownership can come from direct transaction or bequests. Public land is owned by the public but held in trust by the government which manages it to keep it in reasonable condition and reasonable access. Unclaimed land belongs to the government that encompasses it (Given there's none left except in Antarctica, it's kind of a silly category). As for the resources, consult your local laws as mineral rights are one hell of a complicated subject. Other resources are up to the owner of said land, again within reason.

What in your opinion generates the greatest amount of personal freedom, private property, communal property, or no property rights for anyone?

What generates the greatest amount of freedom for society, private property, communal property, or no property rights for anyone?

Does a person have the right to the product of their labor generated from their own land, the communal land, or land that no one owns?

Who owns land? How did they come to own it? How did that person come to own it? Who owns the resources on it?

I think what generates any amount of freedom is perception. A prisoner that never wants to leave his cell would consider himself perfectly free, wouldn't he?

I think what generates any amount of freedom is perception. A prisoner that never wants to leave his cell would consider himself perfectly free, wouldn't he?

it could also be that he considers the world outside his cell even worse.

What in your opinion generates the greatest amount of personal freedom, private property, communal property, or no property rights for anyone?

What generates the greatest amount of freedom for society, private property, communal property, or no property rights for anyone?

Does a person have the right to the product of their labor generated from their own land, the communal land, or land that no one owns?

Who owns land? How did they come to own it? How did that person come to own it? Who owns the resources on it?

The most freedom for individuals and the whole would exist in a society with a little of each:
Privately owned property such as houses, Communal property that produces social necessities such as food for the poor and unownable property such as water rights and large stretches of undeveloped wilderness(something we have far too little of).

Nobody should own the mud. :)

What in your opinion generates the greatest amount of personal freedom, private property, communal property, or no property rights for anyone?

What generates the greatest amount of freedom for society, private property, communal property, or no property rights for anyone?


Define "amount of freedom". Definitions are the most important things in a debate.

I'll build some examples with a statistical distribution of freedom per person.
Let's say total freedom is 1, no freedom is 0.
The distribution will be normalised.

Def.A
Let's define "amount of freedom" as the higher "freedom" value of the freedom distribution.
In this model, clearly private property gives an higher AoF, because we'll have total freedom (1) for the owner, hence no freedom (0) for everyone else (because of normalisation). (Dirac's delta distribution)

Def.B
Let's define AoF as the state with no people having lower freedom values than other people.
In this model, "communal property" wins, because the only way of having no minima in our distribution is to have a constant freedom score of (1/number of people).

Def.C
Let's define AoF as the state with the maximum integral of the distribution of freedom per person. Since the distribution is normalised, it follows trivially that ANY model will do, because the integral is always 1.

;)

Private.

What in your opinion generates the greatest amount of personal freedom, private property, communal property, or no property rights for anyone?

a funky mixture, though "personal freedom" is a bit geared to buying everything and raping the land till its all dust (which is bad)

What generates the greatest amount of freedom for society, private property, communal property, or no property rights for anyone?

no property rights is fairly obvious isn't it? (though a mixture is whats for the best)

Does a person have the right to the product of their labor generated from their own land, the communal land, or land that no one owns?

depends on if profit is being made and if they have permission should they be using communal land (also on how much work you actually put in just plucking an apple tree of all the apples on land that isn't yours is a no)

Who owns land? How did they come to own it? How did that person come to own it? Who owns the resources on it?

nobody owns land but the government claims to and has the monopoly on force to back it up

I leave my terminology undefined as I think it makes for better reading.

If there was no land property owned by anyone, how would construction be decided? Would it be possible to have a elected council with the sum of the people as the legislative branch that would decide on land use or perhaps more accurately "land borrowment".

I am still trying to figure out the ideal government that generates the greatest ammount of freedom for its citizens...

This is an interesting question indeed - one has to be careful to draw the distinction between what someone has the "right" to - and what someone has the "power" to do.

For example, I personally value my individual right to own land - and whatever property I choose to build on that land (within the constraints of local planning regulations of course).
However, by choosing to live on land within a sovereign nation and be able to take advantage of the benefits that living in said nation provides, I also concede to certain government powers.

Such as expropriation of property. With respect to the personal landowner, the national (or in some cases local) government authorities have the power to compulsorily purchase my land. If they decide that they need to build a new road / railway / power line / something of that nature and my land happens to be in the way, I am obliged to sell it to them - and they are obliged to pay me a fair market price for it.

I don't necessarily agree with the government's ability to do this. Whether they have the "right" to do it is another argument - but that argument is largely irrelevant, because whether I like it or not, they do have the power to do it.

Likewise, governments also have the power to expropriate private businesses. They don't always just take them away without paying, mind. Just like compulsory purchase orders, governments usually pay compensation. And in the same vein, you can argue over whether you think the government has the "right" to do this - but at the end of the day, what really matters is that they do have the power to do it. Of course, in some cases where businesses exceed their powers and / or break the law, the government may well refuse compensation. The analogy for this is as follows: If you deliberately set fire to your house and then make a claim on your insurance policy, the insurance company is well within it's rights to deny your claim on the basis that you have acted fraudulently. Likewise, if a business violates the law and hence provokes expropriation by the government, it has little if any right to demand compensation.

So what am I saying here? Does it really come down to power - IE the guy with the most muscle or the biggest guns gets to keep the land? Well, yes. Wars are often fought over territory, and empires are built by military force. I'm not saying that's a good thing or even that it's right, but it's still going to happen. Military empire building is a touch out of fashion these days, so we generally prefer to take control of countries by seizing their economies instead - it's more profitable that way, and tends to result in less bloodshed.

Britain, for example, still retains territory which you could say it has no "right" to, such as Northern Ireland, or the Falkland Islands. The only reason it still retains said territory is the clear willingness to go to war to defend it. In my opinion, the Falkland islands aren't really worth the fuss (strategic sheep purposes, anyone?).

In a similar vein, I support the right of anyone to defend their property. If you trespass on my land, I should have the right to use any necessary force to evict your from it. If you invade my property in clear breach of the law, you forfeit your own rights. For example, if you break into my house with the intention of robbing me, I should be able to whack you over the head and throw you back out onto the street. You should definitely not be able to sue me / have me arrested for GBH - firstly because you forfeited your rights by trepassing, and secondly because your provoked me into whacking you by intending to steal my property.

Anyway, there's my two cents - or two pennies, if you like.

Well white men bearing fire water, guns and small pox typically like to take this "land" you speak of.

If there was no land property owned by anyone, how would construction be decided?

well a community would pull together and build something for the common good e.g. a hospital, the land would be run and and staffed by the community for the community and receive supplies from the community

I am still trying to figure out the ideal government that generates the greatest ammount of freedom for its citizens...

1) why have a government then?
2) all this talk of freedom...are you American by any chance?

Britain, for example, still retains territory which you could say it has no "right" to, such as Northern Ireland, or the Falkland Islands. The only reason it still retains said territory is the clear willingness to go to war to defend it. In my opinion, the Falkland islands aren't really worth the fuss (strategic sheep purposes, anyone?).

Britain has a right to these lands because we have citizens living on them, self determination and all...

What in your opinion generates the greatest amount of personal freedom, private property, communal property, or no property rights for anyone?

The right to one's product.

What generates the greatest amount of freedom for society, private property, communal property, or no property rights for anyone?

Private property as created by a market resolution of claims.

Who owns land? How did they come to own it? How did that person come to own it? Who owns the resources on it?

Land can be owned, but it can only be owned through private defense and the self-imposition of the claim.

All land owned by state charter is illegitimate, and this includes a huge proportion of land.

I personally think state owned land which is loaned to people for certain uses would be best, in which subsidies for equipment on the land and welfare incentives for the families would work and allow autonomous elected unions to run the land with only loose state overview, so as to create efficiency, but the actual occupations and what the land was used for would be directed by the state. So at a local level the workers could decide the micro issues and macro issues at a more broad central level. The land would be the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity.

How is this communal rather than feudal?

EDIT: It just goes to show a trend I have noticed, many leftists seem hellbent on removing all many civil and all economic rights and replacing them with political rights. They cannot seem to notice that political rights are not high on the list for most people.

well a community would pull together and build something for the common good e.g. a hospital, the land would be run and and staffed by the community for the community and receive supplies from the community



1) why have a government then?
2) all this talk of freedom...are you American by any chance?

Im a citizen of Libertas Civitates...

Are you speaking of Anarchy? I looked into Anarchy and it looked into me...

it could also be that he considers the world outside his cell even worse.

He'd probably just try to ensure hed be kept in his cell as well, but u cant do anything 'gainst that, can u?


:mad::mp5::sniper::gundge::

Are you speaking of Anarchy? I looked into Anarchy and it looked into me...

anarcho-syndicalism (my spell check now hates me) would be something you might like judging by your wants

:mad::mp5::sniper::gundge::

http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~bites/OMG!!.jpg

anarcho-syndicalism (my spell check now hates me) would be something you might like judging by your wants



http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~bites/OMG!!.jpg

I looked at anarchy but the thought of highering "protection" insurance kinda put me off. I will look into what you specified. Seams to me that I have an inkling for a Libertarian Converstative Socialist Anarchy government :confused: