|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Who does land "rightly belong" to?
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
Who does land “rightly belong to”?
I’ve been thinking about this lately, due to the situation in Oregon, but it’s something I’ve pondered before. Who has an inherent right to land in general, or to any particular piece of it? And who gets to determine that right (God? Society as a whole? The government at some level?)
If it’s based on who was on the land first, then how far back do you go? As far back as the legal rights extend? Or further? Why?
Is it based on a group (nation) or individual? Do “the Jews” of “the Ukrainians” or any other nation have a right to the territory they claim? Why is a certain piece of land designated as belonging to a particular country, based on boundaries agreed to by people long dead, and usually without the input of the people actually living on that land at the time? And if it’s rightly determined by the people living on the land... then at what point in time? Which land conquest is the one that matters? The most recent? Then what is stopping future conquests? The first? How do you find out what that was? And who is included in the group? Citizen of a country? But what about land claims by people who don’t have a country (State)?
At the individual level, aside from legality, (which means a determination by some authority in a position to create and enforce laws), what determines land ownership anyway? How do I know (other than legally) which land is mine? That everyone around me agrees that it’s mine? What if there is a conflicting claim? That I’m “using” the land? But what does that mean? The white settlers claimed that the Natives were not properly “using” the land and therefore didn’t have a claim to it... is that just? Whose notion of “use” do we use? That I live on it? Then what about squatters? Also how far does that extend? I don’t physically occupy much space at any one time… but my stuff does. But my “property” extends even beyond the physical presence of my stuff.
Legally, of course, property ownership is determined by a government (set of laws), and is really more a matter of a collection of rights… I have the right to occupy a property, and up to a point to do whatever I want on it… depending on the zoning and other legal restrictions, and provided I pay my taxes and other obligations relating to the land. I have the right to pass the (rights to) the land on to my heirs, or to sell it. But legality is, as I stated above, dependent on some authority that creates the laws, and can change.
The guys in Oregon claim that the land rightly belongs to “the people” not “the Government”… but isn’t it really the same thing, and aren’t they actually saying that they want it to belong to “a person”? As a park, or preserve, or protected wilderness or whatever, the land is protected on behalf of the people of the country, for the benefit of the country as a whole, and all people have equal access to (with the exception of those given some special rights for some specific reason). On the other hand, giving that land over to personal ownership means that some ONE owns it, and we get back to the question of who should that one person be?
Don’t get me wrong, I am not at all advocating against personal land ownership, but as a concept it has limitations.
I don’t have answers, just lots of questions.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
It's a good question
Property price inflation such as we have had in the uk is mostly land price inflation. If you compare the uk with Germany, it is possible that the inexorable rise of supermarkets and demand for cheap food and cheap everything is due to land price inflation leaving most people with too little money left after rent/mortgage payments. Which in turn spiritually devalues land even further because farming is about cheapness rather than care of animals and land stewardship.
My personal view is that we are all stewards of land that we occupy and all land is a gift. Nobody owns it other than by virtue of having grabbed it or having bought it from someone who grabbed it.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
Surely this goes to the heart of a ton of political theory about what the status of private property is and to what extent it should be protected, and to what extent it can be taken over by a government of whatever kind. I don't think you can look at just the land aspect without considering all private property because land is just another kind of private property. (Or is it? If we treat it as a special case, what results?? Dunno...)
Who gets to own land depends on your political ideology - if you're a communist the state owns everything etc etc.
My own opinions aren't based on a particularly consistent ideology as I belong to the muddled woolly political centre ground but I tend to think that property should belong to whoever has it right now unless there's a jolly good reason why not (i.e. don't change anything unless you have to as it usually causes problems). The definition of "a jolly good reason why they shouldn't own the property" would range from "because they stole it yesterday and it really belongs to the person they stole it from" to "because it's really really unfair that they have it". And that kind of thing has to be decided on a case by case basis.
Incidentally, the reason I used the example "if they stole it yesterday" is because I instinctively feel there's a difference between stolen yesterday under laws and culture that remain the case now, and stolen ages and ages ago under circumstances which are now debatable. So, for example, I wouldn't be arguing that land "stolen" from indigenous people by invaders a very long time ago ought necessarily to be "returned" to someone. And nor do I have a definition of how long ago "a very long time" is.
Does anyone have a better answer than me?
[edited for spelling]
[ 05. January 2016, 14:07: Message edited by: Helen-Eva ]
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
To Helen's point, I agree it is very very difficult to deal with claims of land-theft from many generations ago under quite different legal situations/ moral understandings. But difficulty does not equal moral right. At the very least, I think we need to recognize the debt, even as it becomes increasingly difficult to rectify as time passes. We all seem to do that in theory but dismiss it quickly because of the messiness involved (("it happened a long time ago") but perhaps we would do well with these long ago but egregious past sins to linger a bit longer, to acknowledge a bit more strongly and definitively, what we have done.
None of which, btw, has anything to do with the yahoos up in Oregon. The OP gets it quite right:
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
Legally, of course, property ownership is determined by a government (set of laws), and is really more a matter of a collection of rights… I have the right to occupy a property, and up to a point to do whatever I want on it… depending on the zoning and other legal restrictions, and provided I pay my taxes and other obligations relating to the land. I have the right to pass the (rights to) the land on to my heirs, or to sell it. But legality is, as I stated above, dependent on some authority that creates the laws, and can change.
The guys in Oregon claim that the land rightly belongs to “the people” not “the Government”… but isn’t it really the same thing, and aren’t they actually saying that they want it to belong to “a person”? As a park, or preserve, or protected wilderness or whatever, the land is protected on behalf of the people of the country, for the benefit of the country as a whole, and all people have equal access to (with the exception of those given some special rights for some specific reason).
Much of the Western US where I live is tied up in government preserves-- for good reason. While there will always be conflicts about how land is used (selling water rights in California during a drought-- really??? ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) ) but in general I think the majority of Americans are happy that our national treasures have been set aside to be preserved for future generations. These yahoos are buying into the same illogic the GOP has been selling for decades: that government is somehow "other" than "us" and is an enemy that much be defeated. Honestly, they more and more driving the country toward anarchy, as seen in Trump's candidacy (tangent).
Another tangental issue for another thread is why these Oregon yahoos are being called "protestors" when young men of color who bring a clock to school are "terrorists".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think it is very difficult because so much of property ownership is related to greed, and so many of those who depend on the income from their land today gained it in some nefarious way in the past.
The best most of us can say is that we do not own land, but we rent it from future generations. But even that becomes stretched when governments own land "on our behalf" that we only benefit from indirectly (if at all).
I once read that future settlers of Pitcairn Island (a British territory in the Pacific) would have to pay to build their own house but would never have ownership of the land beneath it - because the island itself belongs to everyone/nobody.
Although many ask for details, it is said that no new settlers have yet become resident on the islands. I'm not sure if the issue of land ownership has anything to do with that.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
There's a thing called the "Blanket Exercise". It was orginated by Kairos. What's done is a collection of blankets is laid out on the floor of a large hall. Aboriginal inhabitants are asked to stand anywhere they want because they were anywhere they wanted before settlers showed up. Then various pieces of legislation and treaties from the past 500 years are read, one at a time. There is some history in Canada of armed conflict, in the USA history, this reads not as armed conflict, but as genocidal wars of extermination of the aboriginal inhabitants. With wanting to reference Godwin's Law, it makes the eastern expansion Germany wanted in two world wars merely a more systematic and larger undertaking.
The Blanket Exercise takes several hours. And white/European settlers are progressively spread over the land, and the aboriginal people are pushed to fewer and fewer blankets, until they are crowded on just one, and the settler representatives are on all of the others.
The land in the Americas was taken by force, deceit and legal games from the peoples who were originally here. In the USA, the proportion of native peoples is so small, that they can be successfully ignored in most cases. While federal governments have claimed ownership and they administer lands, they aren't really the rightful owners, though the "facts on the ground" mean they are. People like these Oregon hillbillies clearly are quite far down the chain, though their sentiments to shoot 'em up are the same as the government they reject.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
What about Israel? There hadn't been a self-governing Hebrew/Jewish state in the Middle East since the Assyrian conquest. Can't remember the date off-hand but the conquest and destruction of the Davidic monarchy was in around 500BC. So what right does the current state of Israel have over what they claim is their land?
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
What about Israel? There hadn't been a self-governing Hebrew/Jewish state in the Middle East since the Assyrian conquest. Can't remember the date off-hand but the conquest and destruction of the Davidic monarchy was in around 500BC. So what right does the current state of Israel have over what they claim is their land?
None. Which is why the state of Israel should never have been created (though I would say that nationhood isn't necessarily about self-government). Problem is, you can't roll back the clock, and there are generations of Israelis who have been born and grown up in modern Israel, and they do have a right to self-determination. The Palestinians also have a right to return to their homes. This is why I can only see a one-state solution (a la Lebanon) working in Israel-Palestine.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
It's impossible to own land in Mozambique; all land belongs to the people. What's being bought and sold is "right to use" for a certain time. This is still a legacy from Communist times.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
What about Israel? There hadn't been a self-governing Hebrew/Jewish state in the Middle East since the Assyrian conquest. Can't remember the date off-hand but the conquest and destruction of the Davidic monarchy was in around 500BC. So what right does the current state of Israel have over what they claim is their land?
None. Which is why the state of Israel should never have been created (though I would say that nationhood isn't necessarily about self-government). Problem is, you can't roll back the clock, and there are generations of Israelis who have been born and grown up in modern Israel, and they do have a right to self-determination. The Palestinians also have a right to return to their homes. This is why I can only see a one-state solution (a la Lebanon) working in Israel-Palestine.
UN resolutions and acceptance internationally is what legitimised Israel. This wasn't accepted by its Arab neighbours who wanted to use the Palestinians for their own ends. The Palestinians will never attain right of return. Just like my Loyalist ancestors, and I cannot regain the family farm in upstate New York which was stolen by the patriot rabble in 1778-80. I also don't think Americanised Cubans will regain their property or companies with normalisation of relations between USA and Cuba. At some point the facts of current possession and situation have to be accepted. We may be 100 years away from that in Israel-Palestine, not certain how long it will take in the other cases. Ireland is another interesting case. Probably a one state solution is reasonable there too? We're also seeing unusual things ongoing with China-Hong Kong and China-Taiwan with the future difficult to discern.
The one state solution is absolutely never going to happen for Israel-Palestine. Israel was not founded as a secular state, which makes it impossible. You might as well suggest Iran and Iraq should be a single state.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
ISTR from my study of Land Law over 30 years ago now, that all land in the UK is ultimately owned by the Crown (Crownhold). The right to this is not exercised but the Crown does "own" land in its own right, stolen - like most land owned by hereditary peers - from the original owners.
I own the "title" to my own house but not the ground beneath it extending beyong 30 feet below the house. That right belongs to the Crown too, who also have ownership of the coastline below high water marks.
In both the USA and the UK powerful elites or cabals have acquired land through annexation and other dubious means from those they consider unworthy of ownership. There may be more land lost by the native people in the Americas but the principle is the same for the UK on a smaller scale. The indigenous tribes here saw the land as being owned by no one, rather the responisbility of everyone on behalf of the gods in their belief system.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's impossible to own land in Mozambique; all land belongs to the people. What's being bought and sold is "right to use" for a certain time. This is still a legacy from Communist times.
We own a cabin (what elsewhere would be called a cottage) in a provincial park where all land is Provincial Crown Land by definition. We have the use of it only. Every tree taken down has to be approved, all alterations to the land as well.
We also have a "dock spot" which we don't own, and is regulated differently because waters here are all Crown owned by definition to 3 metres above the high water mark and regulated federally also. This creates the interesting situation where people have cabins on lake and river shores, but anyone can land a boat, park themselves on the shore in front of the cabins and the cabin owners cannot prevent it. But they cannot use the dock or any of our things unless we allow it. In practice, we are friendly about it all, and there is seldom any conflict. The practice is that we are too self-regulate in fair and reasonable ways.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
All the land in the US of course once belonged to native peoples, but as far as current law is concerned the Federal government has jurisdiction over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. I don't know for sure the political ideology held by the "militia" occupying the building there, but many of there fellow travelers believe that the county sheriff is the highest law enforcement authority they are bound to honor and that the Federal government has no authority to manage land in the public interest. In other words, they're loony tunes.
And I second cliffdweller's comment about what would likely happen if these guys weren't conservative whites.
--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
For all practical purposes, I agree with Helen-Eva. IMHO her approach works better than any other.
Mark, one of the things you're taught at the beginning of the standard sort of basic land law course is that under a Statute of 1290, all land in England and Wales is held ultimately of the Crown. What anyone else owns is an estate in the land. However, that statute was actually passed to end the practice of granting freeholds to be held of anyone else. It has virtually no practical consequences - and I'm only saying 'virtually' in case someone springs an obscure one out of the woodwork. The last one I can think of was fairly obscure and was abolished in the 1920s.
It has no bearing on what happens when central government buys land. It has to do that either through the market or under the legislation that covers compulsory purchase.
Whether one thinks the state ought to own everything, or can be trusted to look after it better than the rest of us can, is ultimately a matter of your political philosophy, not land law or anything to do with claims to rights different from those that people currently think they have.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
While I appreciate the idea of a long time ago, the long time ago does require some definition. Some of the issues with land were decided in Western Canada as recently as the 1920s with Homesteads, and about the same era with Reserves (Indian reserve land). There are active land claims in B.C. and the territories (Yukon, NWT and Nunavut). Treaty land entitlement is ongoing on the prairies, with some lands going back to Indian bands after 100 years and more.
A Dene guy once told me (rough paraphrase) that the problem with white people (meaning the settlers) is that they default to the concept that everything is dead. By which he partly meant that everything that isn't white and European is either a secondary consideration or disregarded entirely. But also partly he meant that there is no identification with the inanimate and animate world. By way of comparison, an autistic acquaintance told me years ago that he could perceive a physical sensation when someone sat on his sweater (jumper) that was on another chair. Some native people appear to have a similar attachment to the land that he had to his clothes.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Having sat through a few too many meetings on Algonquin land claims (in the Ottawa Valley-- a complicated question where the land on which I live was ceded/need not have been ceded/ may not be capable of cession/ was purchased/ was inadequately ceded/ was ceded of one nation but not another) I was refreshing myself with an empanada and Dos Equis at our local Argentine café with two friends, one Algonquin and the other Coastal Salish (aka Hul'q'umi'num-- just passing through town on a poetry reading tour grant from the Canada Council) and it was pointed out that our challenge was that we were working with one definition of ownership when actually we were talking about two different meanings entirely-- First Nations people were speaking of a place to live, and the others ("settlers" is a problematic term, but will do for this sentence) were speaking of a place to own. (For those interested, the draft Algonquin land claim agreement is an interesting way to clean up this breathtaking mess).
My small dwelling is on land held as estate of the Crown in fee simple, but I can assure you that almost everyone I know is of the belief that they own their land outright, an opinion which causes apopletic rage among farmers on easement, mineral rights, and expropriation questions. As an aside, during the 1982 constitution talks, the Federal government offered a clause about the right to property, but provinces opposed it as this would inhibit their ability to expropriate.
There is an interesting theoretical discussion on how ownership is defined in a republic versus a monarchy, and how associative republics should be distinguished from associative ones, but I need a siesta.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Apologies for double post, but the final paragraph of the previous shows how much I need that siesta:
quote:
here is an interesting theoretical discussion on how ownership is defined in a republic versus a monarchy, and how associative republics should be distinguished from associative ones, but I need a siesta.
should have read revolutionary republics (which are declared into existence e.g., France, China, etc) from associative ones (where people gather together to form a state, such as Switzerland).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
[QB]My own opinions aren't based on a particularly consistent ideology as I belong to the muddled woolly political centre ground but I tend to think that property should belong to whoever has it right now unless there's a jolly good reason why not.
.. for example, I wouldn't be arguing that land "stolen" from indigenous people by invaders a very long time ago ought necessarily to be "returned" to someone. And nor do I have a definition of how long ago "a very long time" is.
[QB]
The problem, ISTM, arises because we think of land and land rights as something imperishable. So that, although it may be a horribly wrong thing to do, there's nothing illogical about bringing up a child to believe that he/she has some right to land that they've never seen and their family has not controlled within that child's lifetime.
See what happens when you reverse that assumption. What if the value of land decays ? What if land is naturally hostile wilderness and only acquires value because people work it and tend it and weed it ? If farmland reverts to jungle in 20 years, then anyone who has worked the land for 20 years has created all its value, and can be judged the owner of that value.
So my value of "a very long time" is somewhere between 20 years (roughly the time it takes a child to grow up never having known anything different) and 100 years (a lifetime for just about anyone).
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
OTOH, if you value the natural vegetation more, then land that has been cleared has a value less than the land that has not been cleared.
It's all a matter of perspective. A farmer would value cleared land more than forest. A hunter gatherer or an amerindian tribesman - or someone whose sense of God was in Nature - might have a different set of values. The farmers "values" are directly translatable into economic value because the land can produce a saleable commodity. The other values are not translatable into economic value, in which case the (uncleared) land has an economic value somewhere between zero and infinity. That is, if economics has any meaning at all in these systems.
[ 05. January 2016, 21:28: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If farmland reverts to jungle in 20 years, then anyone who has worked the land for 20 years has created all its value, and can be judged the owner of that value.
Except that different cultures have historically had different ways in which they maintain the land - and a large amount of the dispossession occurs prior to the change of use.
Whereas you are positing that there was a clear period in which the former inhabitants of that land had abandoned it of their own volition.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's impossible to own land in Mozambique; all land belongs to the people. What's being bought and sold is "right to use" for a certain time. This is still a legacy from Communist times.
Does this work?
(I'd like to think it does because it's close to my own opinions on land, and it would be nice for my opinions to be backed up by reality once in a while.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
I don't think you can look at just the land aspect without considering all private property because land is just another kind of private property. (Or is it? If we treat it as a special case, what results?? Dunno...)
Land is certainly a special kind of property, in that it is fundamentally bounded. We can't suddenly create an extra few acres in downtown wherever (except maybe Amsterdam). I can't move my land somewhere else, either. So I don't think there's a fundamental problem with treating land as special.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Ricardus: Does this work?
I guess it depends on whom you ask. Some South African hotel owners aren't very pleased with this.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Whereas you are positing that there was a clear period in which the former inhabitants of that land had abandoned it of their own volition.
Not necessarily.
I'm suggesting that if you think of your link to or right to your land as something dead and unchanging then there's no limit to how far you can pass on to your descendants that dead entitlement.
Whereas if there's a more organic and perishable relationship between a person and their land, then if someone is dispossessed, whatever the rights and wrongs of that act, then over time the original relationship decays. And the new owner and their innocent descendants build up a replacement relationship with that land.
So that the length of time after which any attempt at "restoration" does more harm than good is shorter than you might think.
The idea of economic value coming from what the current owner puts in is a stepping stone, a way of challenging the concept of land as dead property. If you don't like it, let it go.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The ancient peoples here - and here for 60,000 years or more - hold the view that they belong to the land and not the other way around. Their very being derives from the place where they and their ancestors were born and the dreaming attached to that place, and that directs their way of living.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Having sat through a few too many meetings on Algonquin land claims (in the Ottawa Valley-- a complicated question where the land on which I live was ceded/need not have been ceded/ may not be capable of cession/ was purchased/ was inadequately ceded/ was ceded of one nation but not another) I was refreshing myself with an empanada and Dos Equis at our local Argentine café with two friends, one Algonquin and the other Coastal Salish (aka Hul'q'umi'num-- just passing through town on a poetry reading tour grant from the Canada Council) and it was pointed out that our challenge was that we were working with one definition of ownership when actually we were talking about two different meanings entirely-- First Nations people were speaking of a place to live, and the others ("settlers" is a problematic term, but will do for this sentence) were speaking of a place to own. (For those interested, the draft Algonquin land claim agreement is an interesting way to clean up this breathtaking mess).
My small dwelling is on land held as estate of the Crown in fee simple, but I can assure you that almost everyone I know is of the belief that they own their land outright, an opinion which causes apopletic rage among farmers on easement, mineral rights, and expropriation questions. As an aside, during the 1982 constitution talks, the Federal government offered a clause about the right to property, but provinces opposed it as this would inhibit their ability to expropriate.
There is an interesting theoretical discussion on how ownership is defined in a republic versus a monarchy, and how associative republics should be distinguished from associative ones, but I need a siesta.
Oh, Lordy.
I live on the Other Big Treaty Mess in Ontario, the Williams Treaty lands. The Williams Treaty, signed in 1921 was the biggest hustle in Canadian aboriginal treaty history (and that's going some).
Ma Preacher had a Ojibwa point on her pastoral charge when the 1987 court decision came down that that the Williams Treaty bands had signed away their hunting rights. The community was apoplectic.
I pray that if Ontario can take care of the Algonquins, they can take care of the Ojibwa.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Obviously there are a lot of different legal and philosophical approaches to land "ownership". Personally, I think any land use scheme needs to keep two very important facts abound land - as well as the seas and the air - in mind:
1. We can't make more of it.
Yes, it is possible to fill in low-lying deltas and wetlands, but it is a constant battle with the elements and certainly not a large-scale solution. We do not have the capacity to create or replace complete ecosystems, build mountain ranges or create vast plains. We can't just make more fresh water or clean air. Yes, we can desalinate sea water, but the fresh water created is matched by the creation of saltier water. We could put domes on our big cities and install scrubbers to clean the air, but what happens to the stuff that gets scrubbed?
2. Some types of land use cause permanent changes.
By permanent, I mean changes that cannot be reversed or remediated with human technology on a human time scale. While there are always limits to what an individual property owner can do on their land, the entire viability of our economic system is based on producers being able to routinely dump garbage into the commons. If I have a coffee shop and toss my garbage into the street, I'm littering and I may even lose my business license. If I own a coal mine and a coal-fired electrical plant, I can spew heavy metals and carcinogens into the air day and night and leave ponds and piles of mine tailings everywhere and the public can either put up with it or clean it up themselves, and dammit, they should be grateful they're not freezing in the dark.
I am writing from unceded Musqueam territory, where the People of the River Grass have lived for thousands of years. Officially, I have title to my teensy apartment and a 165/10000 interest in the land it sits on. In actual fact, I'm living on land that the Crown has not yet paid for. If the Crown ever decided that settling British Columbia was a bad idea after all and all us settlers left, the Musqueam would sure as shit not be getting their land back as it was before colonization.
As long as we think of land use as a phenomenon that happens only in the present, we will continue to fuck up our future. We need to start thinking about how we use land in terms of centuries, not a few years or decades.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
My small dwelling is on land held as estate of the Crown in fee simple, but I can assure you that almost everyone I know is of the belief that they own their land outright, an opinion which causes apopletic rage among farmers on easement, mineral rights, and expropriation questions. As an aside, during the 1982 constitution talks, the Federal government offered a clause about the right to property, but provinces opposed it as this would inhibit their ability to expropriate.
There is an interesting theoretical discussion on how but I need a siesta.
It's siesta season here, so interesting how that discussion may be it's most certainly not the time to go down that path.
You are quite right about the lack of understanding of the ownership of a title in fee simple. This question is probably more relevant in some of the old British colonies such as Canada, Oz and NZ where a grant of land very commonly included reservation of certain rights to the Crown. The usual one here was to minerals below a certain, and generally quite shallow, depth. The Crown retained the right to those and could subsequently lease or sell the right to another. Much of the time that made little difference, but many holders of land in the inner and now trendy Sydney suburb of Balmain would have been surprised when coal mining took place under their houses. Recent governments have clawed back some grants without reservations. Others have made use of the reservations to give access rights to prospectors and developers, much to the shock of the "owners".
There was a gain in complexity with the original Strata Schemes Act of 1961 in NSW, establishing a Torrens-type system for home units (US condominiums). Normally, those schemes are built on land; the owners corporation has the title to the land in fee simple, but lot owners have the statutory title
[ 06. January 2016, 03:01: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Whereas if there's a more organic and perishable relationship between a person and their land, then if someone is dispossessed, whatever the rights and wrongs of that act, then over time the original relationship decays. And the new owner and their innocent descendants build up a replacement relationship with that land.
So essentially it's a view of might vs right - if you can successfully disposess someone of the land they own and - say - build a shopping centre on it, and successfully avoid legal recourse for a length of time you get to keep the land.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So essentially it's a view of might vs right - if you can successfully disposess someone of the land they own and - say - build a shopping centre on it, and successfully avoid legal recourse for a length of time you get to keep the land.
It worked for the USA did it not, when the Native Americans were dispossessed?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So essentially it's a view of might vs right - if you can successfully disposess someone of the land they own and - say - build a shopping centre on it, and successfully avoid legal recourse for a length of time you get to keep the land.
It worked for the USA did it not, when the Native Americans were dispossessed?
Is doesn't imply ought.
Further to my original post - I fail to see how what was being proposed was anything except a form of squatters rights that solely applied to the powerful.
[ 06. January 2016, 07:30: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So essentially it's a view of might vs right - if you can successfully disposess someone of the land they own and - say - build a shopping centre on it, and successfully avoid legal recourse for a length of time you get to keep the land.
It worked for the USA did it not, when the Native Americans were dispossessed?
Indeed. And if Islamic State manage to sit in Syria/Iraq for the next 50 years they will eventually become Saudi Arabia.
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The ancient peoples here - and here for 60,000 years or more - hold the view that they belong to the land and not the other way around. Their very being derives from the place where they and their ancestors were born and the dreaming attached to that place, and that directs their way of living.
In the Pacific Islands, this is also the case, under the name of "vanua" (and similar sounding words, depending on the local language). But the big difference is that the colonial power (Britain) did not alienate most of the land, which remained in customary [native] ownership. When each island country became independent (mostly in the 1970s) such provisions were written into the constitution. Thus most of the land in most of the island countries is communally owned and cannot be bought or sold, only leased.
Some metropolitan economists think this hinders economic "development", since the land cannot be used as security for bank loans.
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's impossible to own land in Mozambique; all land belongs to the people. What's being bought and sold is "right to use" for a certain time. This is still a legacy from Communist times.
Does this work?
A better question to my mind would be what happens when the "right to use" period expires. If the occupier of a house hits the end of his "right to use" period but can't afford to buy a new one, does he just get turfed out onto the street?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
Some metropolitan economists think this hinders economic "development", since the land cannot be used as security for bank loans.
Those economists have, of course, been proved wrong by the last four decades of development growth that have resulted in the legendary wealth and economic security now enjoyed by the inhabitants of the islands in question, while those countries that adopt their theories are mired in poverty and forced to rely on handouts from the more prosperous world powers.
Oh, wait...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The student centre at the University of Saskatchewan is called Place Riel, and the main campus pub is called Louis'. Batoche being less than an hour north of Saskatoon. Louis' vision having being hanged along with him at the "end of a rope in an English town (Regina)"* after the second Riel Rebellion of 1885. The English hadn't understood after the first rebellion near Winnipeg 10 years earlier, and we are all heirs to their intransigence and imperialism.
*Link about Batoche, with lyrics at the bottom from "Maria's Place", by Connie Kaldor. I can't find a link to the actual song itself being performed. It is very moving, at least for me. But I've seen the trenches (since excavated that the Metis dug, felt the bullet holes in the church, and handled the artifacts on Riel's desk.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's impossible to own land in Mozambique; all land belongs to the people. What's being bought and sold is "right to use" for a certain time. This is still a legacy from Communist times.
Does this work?
A better question to my mind would be what happens when the "right to use" period expires. If the occupier of a house hits the end of his "right to use" period but can't afford to buy a new one, does he just get turfed out onto the street?
Even if they can afford it. This happened to FIL who operated a family business on provincial land when their 99-year right to use expired. The province (BC) simply decided they wanted to use the property for other purposes (actually, the same purpose, but run by the province rather than private enterprise). A significant amount of $$ invested into improvements on the property went with it to the province.
Devastating for FIL, but a known risk of the enterprise from the beginning.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
Some metropolitan economists think this hinders economic "development", since the land cannot be used as security for bank loans.
Those economists have, of course, been proved wrong by the last four decades of development growth that have resulted in the legendary wealth and economic security now enjoyed by the inhabitants of the islands in question, while those countries that adopt their theories are mired in poverty and forced to rely on handouts from the more prosperous world powers.
Oh, wait...
A Canadian version of the argument that this blocks economic development can be found in
this tome of Tom Flanagan (disclaimer--- I am not convinced by his argument, but it has many supporters).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I had the privilege of canoeing in the 1970s through what is now rather extensively developed for oil extraction, the Clearwater River into the Athabasca, and onward to Fort Chip (with additional fur trade route retracing thereafter). I saw this area again from the air about 15 years later, and then most recently about 4 years ago. I can't help but think that if the First Nations had any say at all, that it can hardly have been a greater and more negative effect. The impacts on the health status of the Lubicon Cree people, one would think, might have tempered the enthusiasm. And one would think the impacts on the Peace and Mackenzie Rivers might have also been considered differently.
We drank freely from all of the waters in the 1970s, just dipping the cup over the side of the canoe. As is still the case in some of our northern waters, catching a fish is a matter of 3-5 casts of the rod. Wild meat similarly easy to come by. -- I think the economic arguments and discussion of prosperity often have definitions a little narrower than might be. Though I suppose this computer is better than a fish or a deer or being able to drink directly out of lake.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
]In the Pacific Islands, this is also the case, under the name of "vanua" (and similar sounding words, depending on the local language). But the big difference is that the colonial power (Britain) did not alienate most of the land, which remained in customary [native] ownership. When each island country became independent (mostly in the 1970s) such provisions were written into the constitution. Thus most of the land in most of the island countries is communally owned and cannot be bought or sold, only leased.
Land brought back into Aboriginal ownership under the provisions of the Native Title legislation enacted after the Mabo decision cannot be alienated or mortgaged. In Mabo itself, the High Court was careful not to talk of allodial land in describing lands to which the ancient rights belonged, and the legislation is equally careful not to talk of trusts. However, those may be helpful concepts for outsiders to think of and help them to understand what has been achieved.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So essentially it's a view of might vs right - if you can successfully disposess someone of the land they own and - say - build a shopping centre on it, and successfully avoid legal recourse for a length of time you get to keep the land.
Aren't you describing adverse possession here?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
Some metropolitan economists think this hinders economic "development", since the land cannot be used as security for bank loans.
Those economists have, of course, been proved wrong by the last four decades of development growth that have resulted in the legendary wealth and economic security now enjoyed by the inhabitants of the islands in question, while those countries that adopt their theories are mired in poverty and forced to rely on handouts from the more prosperous world powers.
Oh, wait...
Yeah, wait.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: A better question to my mind would be what happens when the "right to use" period expires. If the occupier of a house hits the end of his "right to use" period but can't afford to buy a new one, does he just get turfed out onto the street?
I'm only vaguely familiar with this, but you seem to treat "right to use" as some kind of rent that people pay to the government. That's not what it is. It is something you buy from the previous user. In practice, it can only expire if you stop using the land.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Aren't you describing adverse possession here?
Adverses possession is that if I dispossess you, you have to take action against me within a certain length of time. Otherwise, you lose your ability to bring proceedings. As you can no longer eject me, I have acquired a title (not your title) to the land by adverse possession, which has matured to be better than your previous one.
As far as I know, every legal system has something broadly similar. I can't imagine how a legal system could function without it.
In England and Wales, for land the normal period within which you have to bring your claim is 12 years from when you could first have brought it. There are different periods than can apply in some unusual circumstances, most of which relate to your ability to have started your action, rather than to the nature of my occupation.
A lot of the cases that involve this are about boundaries. Disputed encroachments cure themselves over time.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
Who does land “rightly belong to”?
Surprised no-one's cited Psalm 24.1 yet... Domini est terra and all that...
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Aren't you describing adverse possession here?
Up to a point; but there are two fairly important caveats:
In a number of the historical cases that Russ is referring to there is the whole question about the legitimacy of a government making rulings over people who it never represented (and indeed whose rights it explicitly denied).
Secondly, even in the modern era adverse possession is applied unequally - consider the case of squatting on a residential property in thje UK (I bet this is one consistency too far for the libertarians).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A better question to my mind would be what happens when the "right to use" period expires. If the occupier of a house hits the end of his "right to use" period but can't afford to buy a new one, does he just get turfed out onto the street?
If it were the same thing as happens to a renter or a leaseholder when their rented term or lease expires, would you think there was anything objectionable about that?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So essentially it's a view of might vs right - if you can successfully disposess someone of the land they own and - say - build a shopping centre on it, and successfully avoid legal recourse for a length of time you get to keep the land.
Not saying that might is right. More that two wrongs don't make a right. And that after enough time has gone by, trying to set the clock back to before the original wrong was committed does more wrong than right.
It's a bit like the American idea of a "statute of limitations".
Or, to give a different example, suppose you steal my dog. And seven years later I catch up with you. It's not that you haven't wronged me - you have. It's that by that time it has become your dog. Yours is the whistle it answers to. Yours the treatment that has turned it into a soppy pet or a fierce guardian of the property. For me to take the dog back would be to commit a wrong against your children who have grown up with and formed attachments to that dog.
Not saying that I don't have a moral claim on you for some form of compensation or damages. Just that returning the dog isn't the answer (in the way that it would be if I had caught up with you 7 hours after the theft). Because time has moved on and in that time the relationships have changed.
And in particular, me having a disembodied claim against you doesn't mean that if justice is denied me then my descendants have a claim against your descendants...
There comes a point to just turn and walk away.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Talk to an American Indian and see if they agree with you on that.
The land cannot develop an affection for its new possessor. As much as the beneficiaries of the original theft might protest otherwise, the descendants of the original owners are still suffering because of the theft.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
