I am aware of Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states “Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.” And “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”, but what has given anyone the right to sell or allocate land in the first place?
The rich own most of the good land, which is the golden rule now, for most part.
In Belize every citizen is granted land, and if he/she sells it, that's it, no more.
I think being homeless in cold countries, ought to be a crime against the laws of nature.
In my opinion no "one" private person or private group should "OWN" LAND.
O - ne
W - ith
N - one
Land should be "Held in Trust" only by publically accountable Individuals who have to answer to all the rest of the people living and or working on the land in question.
What this country lives and breaths on, MONEY!
Property tax. For people that live in a rural area. Then some trash pickup maybe. If you live in town they charge for sewer and water and probably lots more.
30 years ago you could camp for free. Now the same places charge 10 bux for a night. To fish you have to have licenses etc etc until its cheaper to eat at Red Lobster than fish in a lake.
I saw a large group of people were parking in an area 30 miles oustide of a city and were parking their vehicles and car pooling. It was a desolate area that had large amounts of space with lots of gravel right off an interstate, but they didnt like that either so they harrassed them away from doing that.
One time I saw 3 police cars forcing some bicycle travelers out of the tent they had pitched quite a distance off the side of a highway.
There is no such thing as ownership. They only sometimes allow homeless people to hang out under bridges for awhile, because there is no money in it for anyone to get rid of them.
We are just slaves. Some of us got a cell phones and TVs, but slave we are to a worldwide, tax and interest ponzi scheme where people at the top of the pyramid make out like bandits and stick us with the bill.
I like your position on the matter. If you give me a home anywhere, I lose my freedom. If you take away my right to make my home anywhere, I lose my right.
Pretty much sums it up.
Property tax and maintenance. Government needs caretakers for their properties.
There is no actual private property, otherwise , how could government confiscate it on a whim?
You can sure be the registered tenant though!
This person knows what 's going down and it, isn't those in charge.
As long as we the people allow such things such as you mention here to go on without fighting it in court or in the public arena somehow with our pocket books when that opportunity presents itself or we make our representatives accountable to - " We The People" and not just allow those we Elect to just give lip service to - "We The Peoples" concerns.
This only happens with participation in the system other than simply voting occurs.
One of my concerns is when I hear any politician refer to the people as "Customer's" as if they run a business and we the people are "Just Customer's" with limited rights to "Customer Service" rather than stockholder's in a corporation. A poor example though of, " The right to control those who - "We The People" put in charge of what - "We The People" have invested in our government during our lifetimes.
What gives humans the right to tell other humans they have no right to own land?
Many animals have territories that they defend, even if they don't put physical boundaries on it. Humans are no different, though we could be.
Our current culture doesn't allow for a more global perspective on how to distribute land and other resources. In fact, I'd daresay that we are the only species that exploits resources for personal gain, with individuals (or corporate entities) amassing more resources that they could ever use. We exploit each other as well.
One day, it will stop, but we need a global culture change for that to happen. To answer your question, no one has the right to own land, per say, but it's our culture that allows it.
At it's roots, might. Might gives the right.
We've moved a little beyond that with laws and such, but it is still might. The US has the might to protect the land within our borders; that dreadful UK can't simply move in and squat, for instance.
When Saddam invaded Kuwait it was US might that prevented it. That kept Kuwaitii soil in the hands of Kuwait.
Other peoples OIL/MONEY, same thing. You think USA would help the poor in many parts of Africa and if they had no Oil.
Actually, yes. Americans as a group are pretty giving people, and the charity that flows from the US to Africa is substantial.
Would the US government attempt to solidify the countries reputation with no "compensation"? I hope not - in general the government does not belong in the charity business, playing Robin Hood with the citizen's money. Should people wish to donate to foreign countries and help they can (and do), but that is not the function of government.
Right isn't relevant in determining who is in charge. Might is, and always will be in charge. You can say, "If enough of us band together we can defeat them", but what you are really saying is "Combined we can garner enough might to defeat them". Either way, might is still in charge. All we can hope for is the might that is in charge, will be right.
Yes, other wise the one with the fire power is in charge. That is what Government does, without Gov. you have chaos. The native Americans say they didn't own land, then why did the tribes fight each other over hunting rights? They simply had not advanced enough to write laws nor do math for individual ownership.
I thought they had a general outlook that the Great Spirit owned all. They must have had a sense of Might and Rulership Rights, if not ownership... like gangs do.
"Owning Land" is not the same as owning certain rights on the land!
For example : When you "Buy" property it may have to allow government authorities and even private companies or corporations the right to service such things as meters of water gas or electricity that is provided by them to you.
Think about it we as individuals will never have absolute control over land.
Even over property on that land is subject to taxes and if you don't pay the taxes you will eventually lose the land.
Check out the world of tiny or mini homes
I got a grant for 85% weeks to build portable green tiny or mini homes most people can afford. These homes are set on lease land with a 4 season green house because cause of food can be more expensive than your rent.
Also check out earthships, cob, straw bale, waddle and daub.
We bought a 12x32 cabin for our starter home away from home. It's small enough to be considered portable which, in Kentucky gets us out from under building codes. Also in KY, if you can call your land a farm, the law is more lenient.
A person has to sell and move every eight years which cost as much as $50,000 in re-hocking up, moving and more taxes.
Laws are easier for most part and cheap land choice are far Greater in the USA than in Canada.
We're hoping to establish a small community to wean ourselves and others from the current system (as much as humanly possible). We are shooting for it to be largely nature based, but we'll need more land for that.
I think we should be teaching our children that land should be shared, not owned. "Owning" land is just an idea; the less we perpetuate the idea, the better off our species will be in the long run.
Will your family live in a house on that land?
Will the community have free use of your house since it is occupying land?
Will you be okay with people setting up a picnic or all night party in your house or even right in front of a window or door, any time they want regardless of your wishes? If the land was truly shared they would not need your permission.
A home is for who ever built the home and for who ever is invited in (common courtesy). Rude people are a social matter. We should not cut off everyone because of a few idiots. They would be dealt with.
As far as the land, yes the community should have free use of it with consideration for its caring capacity. I am not saying it could happen over night. An entirely new world view must be embraced before it can.
If your home is private and you own it, do you not for all intent and purpose then own the land on which it sits? Even in a lease situation, for the time agreed to, you have personal control of the property within the bounds of the lease.
When you boil it down, (at least for the individual property at which you reside, which is the only property most people own anyway), isn't the distinction your vision offers really just one of semantics and formality?
Who decides who is an idiot that needs to be dealt with?
Who defines idiot?
Who defines the method of dealing with them?
Who implements the "dealing with" process?
Who decides who decides?
I can think of many more questions, but these should suffice to initially identify who the government is in your society without a government.
Yes one of the greater challeges is governing your village, it's better to start off governing yourself on a lease land with water on it first.
There is only one legal eco off grid village in Canada. They are far more hooked up to the mainstream system than I am.
It's taken me 10 years, just figure out many of the strangle hold legal grey areas.
Good thing I've got a 85 week grant to figure out even better ways because the Goveriment in trouble if they don't have a Plan B or Plan C when sh -the hits the fan with debts. After 40 years of work service 90% of us of this this kind are either dead or dead broke already. Imagine when 100 million baby boomers go to collect pension to come, within all of North America. USA will be China's bitch.
You would not own the land your house sits on, but it must be understood that no one asked to be born into this world and that we all need a place to live.
“Who decides who is an idiot that needs to be dealt with?
Who defines idiot?
Who defines the method of dealing with them?
Who implements the "dealing with" process?
Who decides who decides?”
“Idiot” was a poor choice on my part, but my answer for all these questions is, you and yours would decide.
Perpetuating the idea that owning land is a perpetuation of an idea, is in conflict with the establishments policy, enforced by law, that one either owns the land or is trespassing.
Who makes laws? People, people with access to ideas and people who pass those ideas down to their children. Our children deserve better ideas than those we live with today.
I agree, I also agree with the spirit of your ideas. There is so much bureaucracy that they make it impossible for people to effect laws and lawmaking. Even if they can its watered down or amended into oblivion by the same bureaucracy . I think ownership of land is a misleading term. We rent "our land" from government as long as we live. Property tax is evil in my opinion. If they need taxes for something find another way of getting it, than keeping us boarders or tenants of our own land.
Lasqueti, Interesting place, it was one the rare places I've studies for my off grid green homes villages. That Island and some of the other Island around grow lots of pot and have anarchy type family government
Stay lazy parrot, that is a misconception of American Native rights and treatment.
What if we were all armed? People minus government = chaos is a myth. I don't know about you, but the vast majority of people I know are descent people who want to help each other and the few I know who are not would think twice if everyone was armed. Native American wars were usually very small skirmishes. In many tribes there was more honor in counting coup (touching an enemy and living to tell about it) than there was in killing. Other tribes believed that the spirit of anyone you killed would haunt you and yours forever. Battles were typically over disagreements, not land. I fail to see how the lack of a land owning concept made the indigenous primitive. It makes more sense to me.
Accountability? How come government is the only institution in the whole world that is not legally obligated to honour its contract? I've said it before, but I trust institutions that's existence depends on my voluntary payment above institutions that claim a violent monopoly and steal my money. Yes, I trust Apple, Wal-Mart and Nestle more than I do the government.
You won't get an argument from me on that. Unfortunately nobody has come up with a way to make it work without a government. All land on earth is claimed by a government so there is no place for a fresh start, and even then, it would only be a matter of time before the existing governments sought to take you over.
We are not our enemies. The ideas that we adhere to are.
The government, despite being a violent monopoly, can only exist through our cooperation. We can all collectively stop paying taxes and live peacefully if we darn well wanted to. Other governments, maybe, but there is nothing to stop us voluntarily raising a militia to protect ourselves either.
The difficulty in getting 350,000,000 people to live in peace and harmony without a cop on every street corner boggles the mind.
Ditto for getting enough people together to form a militia capable of protecting the country and learning to work together to accomplish that task. Too many chiefs, not enough indians.
We've learnt to work together perfectly well when it comes to food, banking, travel, media, publishing, power, water, transport, logistics . . . but when it comes to the police force and militias? Nope, we're then a bunch of bumbling buffoons and we need an agency to take our money and do it for us. There's no evidence to suggest that. The motivation for the government's monopoly of those things is the same motivation as any other monopoly: they don't want competition. In any case, a number of competing militias accountable to the people has to be far superior to what we have now: a forever expanding military that profits from death and destruction.
Unless you plan on altering human nature some how, yes. You can be pollyannish, and imagine otherwise, but it isn't going to happen. Even if it did, chaos would ensue.
A. ---the fact that people are allowed to own land. Here, the government allows it. Why the heck not? Owning land is what makes the world go 'round. We wanted the land the native Native Americans did not own. Now look.
"Why the heck not?" Well for one, there is a finite amount of land on the planet and two, there are over 1 million other species.
Well, for one thing, there is plenty of land in the US. For the rest of the world that is their concern. Whatever works for each country.
" Imagine there's no country. Its easy if you try..."
(How I loved that song when it first came out as a 17 year old with a very empty head.) Sorry, John Lennon, but we need borders, we need fences, we need boundaries. New World Order thinking must GO! Sorry Rod, I used to think like you. I got enlightened by studying the Federalist Papers, Plato and Aristotle in college...before the left took over there.
Why do you assume that I am thinking "New World Order"?
You are not, knowingly, but you are, unknowingly.
This is why it is so easy to indoctrinate the Youth. It all sounds so great. But believe me... we need walls in our homes and fences around our houses to secure sanity, peace of mind and security. On a national level, boundaries provide an area which a people can defend. An extended republic cannot be too large or too small for many reasons... defense being one of them. (That is one of the reasons that Rome fell... Too large an empire to not only run, but defend.)
(Also, consider what James Madison in paper 51 of the Federalist Papers
mentioned, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary.")
Shall I continue?
(Why stop now?
"If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control itself. A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary control on the government..." for further auxiliary precautions see page 316 of the Federalist Papers. ( Yes, homework , Rod!)
PS This book was to be required reading for high schools in California! I wonder what happened to that plan?
Sorry, I got carried away.)
Yes, it is fine to own land.
Nothing wrong with it at all.
Who likes paying their landlord?
Ah, to be young again. How old do you think I am? Never mind. What are you afraid of? I'm sorry, I rolled my eyes.
You got a good heart Rod, wish there more people who think like you.
Now what are we going to do about the 2% rich who rule the most of the World ‘land Military, Police, Media and Banks
The "2%" you speak of are people too; people who like us were born into a system not of their making or choosing. Just because it is working for them, doesn't make them bad people.
Kings and Emporers and Pharoahs owned the land from Mongolia to Instanbul to Bergen Norway to Israel and all the Alexandrian and Roman empires. We see the Magna Carta pop up in someplace like 1566. Man began to have some ownership but only as lords. What we call "real property" was an even later right than women being owned by husbands and slaves chattel. Children were a property right.
What strange happenings in our land rush. What bizarre novelties were gold claims. Man does not own property, he is given right to it by his lordship.
No Native American ever owned land, he was only dominant over it.
The American dream of the white picket fence is completely ridiculous because normally the bank (modern lordship owns it) until our death.
Personal and real property are a figment agreement between parties. A human cannot own property. But a human entity can. Be secure in your home, you fool.
Eric, you are correct because even if your home is "free and clear," the government can confiscate it at any time it wants, giving you what ever it pleases for compensation. I think the OP, however, is suggesting nobody, including an entity, should be able to own it. Innersmiff did a nice job describing why that would not work.
The greatest freedom is that without anchor to land. The greatest ownership is all that is before you. Only the money makers make ownership advisable.
In my silly world I own my land. Who really owns it, try to take it.
Private property is the only way we can apply the universal rule that one has the right to their own life and freedom. If we don't have property, that is, the product of one's labour, and the land in which to labour (so you're gonna make a watch, but where the heck are you gonna do it?), what we have is what is known as 'the tragedy of the commons'. For if everyone owns everything, where does my rights end and yours begin? How can we all simultaneously have the right to free association if there is no mechanism to stop unsolicited association? If we all have freedom of speech, does that mean a stranger can come into your house and tell your children all about his sexual escapades? No! Because, that's your house darn it.
What clouds the issue is the perception that all land ownership is essentially violent - 'might is right'. Think of it this way: how is it that orchards are to thrive if there is not a steward responsible for its upkeep? Through voluntary cooperation, we can agree to own (steward) sections of land for certain purposes. This is essentially what land-ownership is. If there is no individual ownership, there is no individual incentive for upkeep and growth. I'm not denying that well-run commons' can thrive sometimes, but the division of labour through the division of land is the most efficient economic system.
Well put, in my opinion, Innersmiff.
I ran across something in a book that just poped into my hands regarding the early california Indians.
"To them (California Indians), the individual was less important than the family, the village, the people and their place in the plan of life." The way of the California Indian was to show humility to the Great Spirit and to each other in most daily activities, showing humility by being unselfish was also important in gambling, a favorite pastime of the California Indians." hehehe.
This excerpt is very interesting regarding the Colorado River Indian tribes:
"Farming was associated with hard work, and in California it was associated with war because of the warlike nature of the farming tribes. Each had a warrior class whose job it was to attack the other farming tribes, kill and scalp their warriors, and enslave their women and children, who were kept as proof of victory. They traveled as far away as 150 miles for a fight and they believed that war enhanced the spiritual nature of the tribe as a whole." These were the Colorado River tribes- the Yuma, Mojave, Diegueno and the Cahiuilla. Page 17 and19 of "Digger", a book by Jerry Stanley, Crown Publishers, Inc. New York.
by cjhunsinger 11 years ago
The governance of America has been slowly shifting from the Constitution, individual freedom, to the mandate of the United Nations Charter and the Declaration on Human Rights, a notably socialistic document. That democracy is the sought after, 'holy grail' of truth should there be a vote on whether...
by Susie Lehto 5 years ago
The majority of American people believe the right to own a firearm for self-defense is their choice to make, not the governments. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … _own_a_gunThe U.S. Supreme Court said eight years ago that the Constitution guarantees our fundamental right to keep a...
by Peeples 8 years ago
What will it take for USA to realize we need to start minding our own business?Wouldn't this be the simplest solution to all the issues with other countries? I hate to sound cold hearted but if they want to kill their neighbors it's none of our business. Why not just work towards being 100%...
by Kathryn L Hill 23 months ago
The biggest threat to our freedom is taxation. Yet the democrats adore Elizabeth Warren. They too will be taxed ... - won't they?So, how come they think SHE has the answer?and don't fear a loss of freedom under the principals being promoted by Warren et al?
by Mike Russo 8 years ago
I watched Piers Morgan's show twice, once with Alex Jones as his guest and then again with Ben Shapiro as his guest. Both of these people believe that is necessary for citizens to have high capacity assault weapons, like AR15's to protect themselves from the eventual tyranny of their own...
by retief2000 7 years ago
If health care is a right, what else is?Is food a right, can I have the taxpayers pay for a 5000 calorie diet of caviar, filet mignon and champagne. I s housing a right, can I have a 5000 sq ft home on 10 wooded acres on the coast of Maine provided by the taxpayers. Is transportation a right, I...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|