How do you feel about private property issues?

[coloradodem2005]

Should people be able to own it? Why or why not?

[theboss]

1. Um, yes

Next question.

[JHB]

2. What brings this question on?

If you actually want a discussion, you might try asking something specific, like what criterial should we use to judge where private property rights collide with other peoples' rights.

[Caution]

3. yes of course

contrary to right-wing opinion very few Democrats are actually communists.

[rman]

4. depends

I think so called "commons" should not be privately owned but publicly owned (and controled).

I think it'd be silly not to allow people to privately own things like a car, clothes, a house.

But things of common interest such as water, air, resources, currency, the media/press - those things should not be privately owned.

When i wreck my own car, that's my own business (assuming i didn't wreck it by crashing into another car).
But when i own for instance the media or currency, and wreck that, then many people will suffer the consequences.

[GiovanniC]

6. So, Should a Company Be Allowed

To get water from, say, an underground water source on property owned by the company, purify/filter it, bottle it, and sell it?

Do they have the right to sell water that doesn't belong to them.

[Warpy]

7. In that case

They're selling a label, since the commonly owned water supply is safe, potable, and pletniful.

Sure, let them sell a fancy label to fools.

[GiovanniC]

14. The Reason I Ask

Is because here in Michigan, there have been cases -- or a case, in particular -- which featured a company extracting water, purifying it, bottling it, and shipping it away. Environmental groups have been none too happy about it, saying that water, like air, is not something you can "own" and "sell" to someone and that this company was harming the environment by making drastic changes in the water cycle.

[rman]

15. once a (modern) corporation owns the water,

then that water is no longer commonly owned.

[rman]

10. not the kind of corporations we have now,

because their owners cannot by law be held accountable for any adverse effect their transactions have on third praties. Only the corporation itself can be held accountable, but it is nothing but an abstract legal construct.


If otoh we'd still have the laws regarding corporations we used to have, then it'd be safe to have a corporation manage commons.

- A charter was granted for a limited time

- Corporations were explicitly chartered for
the purpose of serving the public interest--
profit for shareholders was the means to that end

- Corporations could engage only in
activities necessary to fulfill their chartered goal

- Corporations could be terminated if they
exceeded their authority or if they caused
public harm.

- Owners and managers were responsible
for criminal acts they committed on the job.

- Corporations could not make any political
contributions, nor spend money to influence
legislation.

- A corporation could not purchase or own
stock in other corporations, nor own any property
other than that necessary to fulfill its chartered
purpose.


from "Corporate History Primer"
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/pdf/primers/hidden_corporate_history.pdf


another exerpt to put things into context:

"Today, corporations wield immense power over our government, public lands, even our schools. But this was not the intent of our country’s founders.
In 1776 we declared our independence not only from British rule, but also from the corporations of England that controlled trade and extracted wealth from the U.S. (and other) colonies. Thus, in the early days of our country, we only allowed corporations to be chartered (licensed to operate) to serve explicitly as a tool to gather investment and disperse financial liability in order to provide public goods, such as construction of roads, bridges or canals."

http://reclaimdemocracy.org

[bob reynolds]

5. it is essential to any rational economic system n/t

[HootieMcBoob]

8. What the hell is going on here today?

First some nut talks up Castro and now you're asking whether people should be allowed to own property? Are there trolls here or have some people gone off their meds?

[murray hill farm]

45. Cuba

I live in Mexico...and have been to Cuba. If you talk to folks in Cuba they will tell you either they love Castro or hate Castro..and their opinion of him is based almost exclusively on how much their familys owned and how wealthy their families were before Castro came into power. The wealthy families all fled to Florida when their mansions were removed from their ownership and given to the people..the decendents of these folks hate Castro..one can understand that. Now, if you talk to the folks who were the majority of the Cuban population who had very little before Castro came into power, they will tell you how much better their lives are now and how much they love their Castro. The mansions? These are enjoyed now by the poor people of Cuba who have shared time to spend at these hugh homes and enjoy the swimming pools and the pleasure of the mansions that were once only available to the very wealthy.

[TX-RAT]

9. Why shouldn't people be allowed to own property?

Strange question.
Where are you going with this?

[rman]

11. trying to frame it as an either-or case, which it isn't.

peoples gut reaction: "of course people should be allowed to own property".

conclusion: anything is up for grabs.

including rain water. i kid you not - google bechtel rainwater

[TX-RAT]

16. google bechtel rainwater

Better than that, check into T-Boone Pickens.
Bought up all the water rights in the Texas Panhandle.

[rman]

22. yeah it happens everywhere

it's just that taking posession of the water that falls from the sky, and prohibiting the people to make use of it because that would reduce the profits of the corporation, is probably the most extreme example yet.
I mean, what's next? claiming ownership of the air we breath?

www.thecorporation.com

[TX-RAT]

27. On my place

I have 16 oil wells on my place, with no mineral wrights. Equipment is constantly going in and out, at all times of the day. I receive surface damages, only when they cut a new road, or have a oil, or saltwater spill( which by the way is far more damaging than oil). I can not inter fear with the natural run off of water. Luckily there are 3 stock tanks that were grandfathered in to place, so the cows do have sufficient water available.
I guess what I'm saying, is if you only have surface wrights, you don't have shit.

[DaveSZ]

12. Are you talking about for adding to public lands?

The government should compensate any private property holder at fair market value for any land needed for wildlife refuges and the like.

[TX-RAT]

19. My response was to the original poster.

I'm a firm believer in property ownership. My livelihood depends on it.

[ibegurpard]

13. Just like anything, it needs to be balanced against the public good.

If you are a private property owner, that doesn't give you unlimited rights to do something on your property that affects all of your neighbors.

[DaveSZ]

17. Right

You shouldn't have the right to dump motor oil into a creek or river that flows through your property.

[TX-RAT]

21. True

And there are laws in TX that protect your neighbors from just such thing.

[goodhue]

18. Yes but the commons must be protected for the public good.

eom

[goodhue]

20. The tragedy of the commons . . .

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.

2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision­making herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

http://dieoff.org/page95.htm

[rman]

23. use of the commons could be regulated

without making the commons privately owned.
Surely private ownership of commons is hardly the ideal solution, as can be witnessed all over the planet.

[goodhue]

24. agreed!

Regulation is the key.
And public ownership is essential in US,
otherwise regulation open to takings challenge.

[happyslug]

33. There are two solutions to the problem of the "tragedy of the commons".

Often these are interconnected and hard to see where one stops and the other starts. The first way to solve the problem of the "tragedy of the commons" is by Government regulation. This is when the Government imposes a rule on how a common area is to be used. Now one set of rule is to give the common area to one person (i.e. end it being a "Common Area" and make it a "Private area"). This "Solution" is the one most advocated by The Right Wing but is often NOT the best solution (IF ownership by one person would have been sufficient the "Common Area" would NEVER have come into being, most common areas are "Common" because society NEEDS THEM TO BE COMMON AREA.

The best example of such a need for a Common Area is your local roads (For this discussion I will ignore limited Access Highways and other "high speed" roads for such highways can very easily be converted to s toll system and thus paid for by its users and as such are more like private Railroads than your local road. I am also ignoring Bridges that can NOT be avoided, which are also easy to convert to a toll system).

Tolls just are NOT possible for your local roads. If every property owner set up a toll booth at his property line the costs for people as a whole to just stop and pay the toll will exceed what each and every property owner would receive. Thus Tolls tend NOT to work when it comes to maintaining local roads (To many toll booths for to little money given the volume of traffic on such local roads).

The problem of the "Common Roads" have always been a headache. Prior to the invention of the Gasoline Tax, most roads in America where dirt (This was true even in the Cities, through most city streets were paved by 1900 unlike Rural roads which where not paved till the 1930s). In Colonial America people who owned land next to a road had to provide maintenance of the road next to their property (and other times had to provide so many days labor to work on the road as a whole, this was later converted to the payment of taxes to upkeep the roads).

Because people disliked taxes roads in Rural America (prior to the Gasoline Tax first introduced in about 1905) were in terrible shape (and even in Cities the paving was done to prevent the roads becoming mud and this very minimal compared to what we do today). In the cities Roads were paved by the City Government for such cities had the tax base to pay for such paving AND the need to do so given the limits of the time period (For example refrigerations did not exist in most homes till the 1930s so perishable items had to be purchased daily, in Rural areas these were gathered daily or just done without).

To give such roads to "Private Ownership" was possible but the cost to do so would be high. The only way for the user to pay for the use of the road would be by charging a toll. If every landowner charged such a toll, the costs to collect the tolls would exceed what people would get (and reduce demand for the road thus dropping tolls even more).

Thus Roads have always been viewed as a Common Area, something important but something Private Enterprise could NOT do. (Please remember I am avoiding long distance highways, limited excess highways and even impossible to by pass bridges, all of which can be tolled often at great profit, here I am discussing YOUR LOCAL ROADS).

The First solution to the problem of the "tragedy of the commons" are shown in how local roads are and have been maintained. Prior to the invention of Gasoline Taxes maintenance of Roads were a constant headache. In rural areas people had to maintain the areas of the road on their property (and this is retained in the duty to clean off Sidewalks when it snows). In addition in colonial times people had to work so many days a year to work on the "Common Areas" of the road system (This was later converted to taxes and such taxes often is used to maintain local roads while the Gasoline Taxes are used for the larger highways).

Thus the GOVERNMENT by Regulations HAD to impose its will on how the roads were to be Maintained. In Addition the GOVERNMENT had to imposed its will as HOW the roads were and are to be used (Do you travel on the left or right had side of the highway? It is a rule on how the common is to be USED. These are rules IMPOSED by the state on anyone who wants to use the COMMON AREA OF THE ROAD. Such rules cut back on the waste and destruction of the "Tragedy of the Commons" and is effective in avoiding the "Tragedy of the Commons" when it comes to you local roads.

The second method to avoiding the "Tragedy of the Commons" is Religious (By Religion I do NOT mean a belief in GOD but a set of RULES people follow NOT because the Government says you must follow those rules But that to be a member of your religion YOU must follow such rules, maybe the term "Strongly Held Beliefs" would be better term but Religious is one word one not three and I will use it in this paper). An Example of the "Religious" rule is when people drive on the right unless passing. Many states mandate such a rule, but it is unenforceable, it is more of HOW one is to drive on the Public roads than a rule if violated subjects you to Government action.

Now Religious rules to avoid the problem of the "Tragedy of the Commons" only works if EVERYONE is of the same set of Beliefs. A "non conformist" destroys the protection the use of "Religion" provides to the "Commons" (And is why historically when Religion is used to avoid the problems of the "tragedy of the commons" that such religions are INTOLERANT of dissent). For example if a large group of people OPPOSED getting out of the left lane EXCEPT TO exit, these people destroy whatever benefit the "Religious" rule of staying in the right lane provides.

Now Religious rules to avoid the problem of the "Tragedy of the Commons" can vary. For example the avoiding of eating pork by Jews and Arabs is an example of using religion to avoid the problem of the "Tragedy of the Commons". Pigs use as much water as a man (Which is much more than a horse, a Cow, a Sheep, a Goat etc). In a desert environment a people who do NOT eat pork (and thus have no reason to keep pigs) will be able to have more other animals for grazing (and more people to fight) than a group that eat pork (in the same environment). Thus the reasons the Jews and Arabs came to dominate the Mid-East was their were the best able to survive in the Deserts to to this and other beliefs that reflect their desert environment.

Throughout history you hear of such "Religious taboos" to our modern ears many sound strange but if you look in the Society the "Taboos" first appear you quickly see it was a solution to a problem which was (and often is) a "Tragedy of the Commons".

Now if you look at the examples I give, you may say "Hay, these can be GOVERNMENT IMPOSES RULES ALSO" NOT religious rules. You would be correct, but that is why I said it is often difficult to separate Governmental and Religious solutions to the problem of the "Tragedy of the Commons". These two solutions tend to overlap (Look at the Neo-Cons "religious" belief that the best solution to the problem of the "Tragedy of the Commons" is Private property Rights, rights to be guaranteed by the Government).

My point here is you often have to use BOTH Government and "Commonly Held Beliefs" to avoid problems of the "Tragedy of the Commons". One way to do BOTH is to convert the property to one owned by a private person (The Private property Solution) but it is only one of many. Government Regulation is another, provided the Government can impose its Regulations, a third solution is if Everyone has a common belief that prevents the problem (provided the dissenters are few in numbers).

The best solution tends to be a combination of Government and belief. The Government imposes its rules on non-conformists while the vast majority of people follows the rules as part of their belief system. This combination can be compelling (Look at the Environmental Movement of the last 40 years and how it has forced improvements in the environment not only through its own actions but the action it has mongered to have the Government impose).

[Gregorian]

25. Why is it that no matter what it is,

I think and think, and eventually realize that it's all about overpopulation?

Private property wouldn't be an issue. But here I sit, watching large parts of the forest turning to bare dirt. They're shipping the trees away so that someone can have a redwood board. A multiplicity of someone's. "Just me", times a billion.

I like being able to own my house and call it home. I hate that the logging company bought land for $1 per acre 150 years ago, and now is shipping it off to all of the breeder's grown up children who need houses. It's just sick.

So it's now an issue. I'd say that if private ownership is hurting the planet, then it shouldn't be done. But since we can't stop people from building houses, and eating, all we can do is slow down the breeding.

[goodhue]

29. It's not about overpopulation it's about overconsumption.

eom

[Gregorian]

36. Do you know why that is untrue?

Can you follow this, or ignore it?

If there were ten people on the planet, they could consume as much as they wanted.

There is no argument.

I should ad that your statement is a factor when considering that the people are already here. Yes, we can alleviate the problems of overpopulation by engineering our way around it. HOWEVER, population growth is exponential. Exponential growth is unsustainable. In calculus we see the curve of population plotted against time, and the rate of growth for the period in which we live, is frightening and dangerous to those who understand it.

[goodhue]

37. Malthus was wrong!

eom

[Gregorian]

40. Don't know who Malthus is.

And it doesn't matter who he is. And it doesn't matter who I am. What does matter is what you are going to be living through in the next few decades. The truth will be evident, unless you really don't want to look.

[goodhue]

41. Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834)

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Malthus.htm

What many know, at least those with an elementary knowledge of economics or politics, Malthus is the surname of a man, who, a couple of hundred years back, said that man, sooner or later, universally, will run up against himself; that the population of mankind will eventually outstrip man's ability to supply himself with the necessities of life. The Malthusian doctrine, as stated in "Essay on the Principle of Population," was expressed as follows: "population increases in a geometric ratio, while the means of subsistence increases in an arithmetic ratio." Well, that seems plain enough, and perfectly understandable -- if there is too many people and not enough food, then, certainly, there is going to be problems. Malthus developed his theory, at least to this extent: that left alone, no matter all the problems short of world wide catastrophe, humankind will survive, as, nature has a natural way to cut population levels: "crime, disease, war, and vice," being, the necessary checks on population." This proposition, as was made by Malthus in 1798, was to cause quite a public stir, then, and yet today.

[Gregorian]

42. Well, would you be so kind as to point out how he was wrong?

I'm very interested. I can see that he was wrong about one of his ideas. Population isn't geometric. It's exponential. It's even worse than he thought. But I'd love to hear what you have to say. After all, I've watched this with observant eyes, and am quite distressed over it. People like Dr. Paul Ehrich didn't write books forty years ago, and still be vigilantly involved because there isn't a problem. The traffic, the urban sprawl, the energy usage, don't just happen by themselves.

[TX-RAT]

38. Simpler explanation

I have 3 sections of land( section = 1 square mile) I can run 18 head of cattle per section and not have to provide alternative food sources. Any more than that and i over graze it's ability's.
I agree with you, overpopulation is a major problem thats ignored by most.

[RoeBear]

47. That's all 640 acres can support?

Must be some very arid land.

[John BigBootay]

26. Am I misssing something here?

When did this become "Communist Underground?"

[rman]

48. if anything, DU is not Capitalist Underground

what makes you think DU has become communist?

[Zynx]

28. Um, hell yes. What kind of question is this?

[JanMichael]

30. Don't you mean "Real" property?

There's a significant difference between what's considered "Private" property and "Real" property.

[AngryAmish]

31. No one needs more than one car

I think that shoiuld be regulated. And those big houses. What a waste.

[HootieMcBoob]

34. no one needs more than one pair of underpants either

that should be regulated too

[Viking12]

39. I go commando

Does that mean I get to own two cars? :)

[Logansquare]

43. Only if you keep 'em in your pants <eom>

[blindpig]

32. concerning biodiversity

I don't think you should be able to alter or despoil lands or waters necessary for maintaining adequate stocks of habitats and their inhabitants. Our responsibility for preserving what's left of the natural world trumps the concept of property, imho. Guess that makes me some sort of ecosocialist.
And yes, I am a landowner.

[Kanary]

35. I wish I had some. That's how I feel about it.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

44. Some of me says yes

and some of me says no.

The Indian in me says we can't really OWN land, anyway.

The Buddhist in me says attachments suck, anyway.

I'm a confused person.

And what's up with all the DUers on this thread freaking about this question? It's just a question, calm down people.

[cosmicvortex20]

46. I dont care anybout anyone elses, long as mine is left alone.

Too bad land mines arnt legal.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. Until People Have The Fundamental, Inalienable Right To Their Own Bodies

In my mind, any discussion of "private propery" is moot. I mean, you don't even belong to you-- think you do? Try smoking that weed or ingesting some other non-government sanctioned chemical. Terminally ill? Try arranging a dignified, pain-free exit of your own choosing... You can't, not without risking arrest. Because you are the property of the government. As long as that's the case, it doesn't really mean dick what "you" own.