Ludi, it does not follow that fighting over territory not being over ownership (though it was over use) then necessarily there was no ownership of land.
Storm wrote: To arbitrarily exclude land would be to employ a form of equivocation.
To say that since land was not owned privately for the plains "indians" then it must have been owned communally is to fall prey to the false dichotomy fallacy. The other option, which happens to coincide with reality, is that the land was unowned, where it was not de facto owned by an individual. The plot worked, or the particular foraging plot which was nourished, was respected by others as belonging to that individual. This would be de facto private property. That when traveling there was no claim to the land, does not and did not imply communal ownership, but rather simply no claim of ownership.
Whether we are focusing on land or not, it would be arbitrary to treat it differently than other extensions of the individual's labor, such as the tools, weapons, clothing, etc. which have been acknowledged as property.
If we can recognize that the individual has inherent value, and that individual's labor creates the property that they own, why would we add "except for land" or any other property? This is why I noted the arbitrary nature of that exclusion.
Robert Ray wrote:
Please re-read the thread topic and then my clarification. I'd like to stay on topic and get some present or real time "on topic" answers or insight.
Please share your thoughts on present land ownership either communal or personal and if it is a positive or a detriment to permaculture or how it would or if it does inhibit community fare share.
As I have noted all along, "communal ownership" is not merely a logical impossibility but is of course detrimental to the property, the environment, even interpersonal relations.
I don't see how I've strayed from the topic Robert, perhaps you could clarify what you found offensive or off topic. Understanding the nature of property, and respect for persons (the basis of all property) seems to be very key to present solutions.
Ludi, once you allow that individuals are morally worthwhile you have introduced land ownership. Even if you wanted to deny this, once we've allowed ownership of ANY property (like the tools) we've acknowledged implicitly land ownership. To treat land differently requires equivocation or simply arbitrary stipulation. Either of these approaches leads to logical and practical failure.
(general not specific use of "you" here.. I've found some folks are put off by using "one" instead of "you")
Storm wrote:I don't appeal to "authority" as requested, because that too is a fallacy. However I did reference the examples of government housing, which have been and continue to be dismal failures because there is no ownership, thus no reason for improvement or even basic maintenance.
Storm wrote:This is of course one of the problems. This claim is simply that you like it because you like it
Storm wrote:Thus removing all motivation to improve or maintain the residence. And of course this requires denying the value of the individual and respecting that there may be emotional or other ties to the property/home.
Storm wrote:In such a setting as you describe, were I to create three rooms of libraries to house my books, which bring me great joy, and maintained those rooms with great care, the "community" could simply steal that home from me, giving me a one room shack with no room for my books, perhaps even decreeing that my books be used as fire material, giving over my lovingly crafted home to others who chose to have lots of children.
Storm wrote:We need not deny the value of the individual in order to work together. We can have respect for persons, including recognizing that we each have property rights, and still work together to improve our lives.
Storm wrote:When I hear how we must or should abandon respect for others, including property rights, I cringe knowing the historical failures of this mentality, but also because of the success of respect for persons.
Kerrick wrote: One motivation that I see in action is valuing the individual needs of the other community members one lives with. You say "This of course requires denying the value of the individual" as if everyone must agree to that statement. It doesn't require denying the value of the individual. Individual needs and values are highly considered in this environment.
Kerrick, "Individual needs and values are highly considered in this environment."
Some may be, but this ignores the point, or rather obscures it. A need in me cannot and does not create an obligation for you.