So - are we doing the flame-war thing? — Banno

If we are, you started it.

'cause that don't work well here. — Banno

You're not good at it, that much is true.

But happy to play along, if that's what you want. — Banno

ditto.

Or better, you could offer an argument, as against anecdotes from your lost loves. — Banno

It is a difficult question. I'm not sure it has an answer, but here's my first thought:

Morally, it's like Rousseau said: “The man who first fenced in a piece of land ...was the true founder of civil society."

Note, the quote is abbreviated. The full quote reads:

“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”

But I disagree. The fruits of the earth are meagre if effort is not added; and it is universally observed that a man tends his own garden best. So, abbreviation of the quote is justified by the concept of productivity; and exclusive ownership is justified by Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons, in that, common ownership leads to neglect and abuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Hence, my first thought is that it is the effort it takes to make land productive that is the basis of ownership. — counterpunch

Now let's see if I can get a decent reply???

You can’t commercialize true ownership. If you want to own some property, especially if nobody else cares about it (in which case it is especially desirable), go visit it frequently, as I did in former times the Ararat River. There I stretched myself naked across the sandy beach, and swam in the turbulent waters, watched an otter fish for her young, a kingfisher dive for his prey; smoked some pot and and drank a couple beers; conversed with myself and nature.

That’s how you truly own a place!

If we are, you started it. — counterpunch

Yeah, I hit you back first.

Hence, my first thought is that it is the effort it takes to make land productive that is the basis of ownership. — counterpunch

Nice to see you leaning towards the labour theory of value. Never took you for a Marxist. Maybe there is hope...

So the guy who works in the factory owns it...?

Not sure that's where you wanted to go, though. Might be a problems here with consistency.

Nice to see you leaning towards the labour theory of value. Never took you for a Marxist. Maybe there is hope...So the guy who works in the factory owns it...? — Banno

In Marxism there are three elements to capitalist production: land, labour and capital. A labour theory of value conveniently forgets the other two, and makes out like the unskilled worker has made the most significant contribution to the productive endeavour. I've never understood this. Maybe you can explain it. Seems utterly incoherent to me.

Maybe you can explain it. — counterpunch

But you advocated it... or so it seem'd: "Hence, my first thought is that it is the effort it takes to make land productive that is the basis of ownership."

Perhaps it would be better for you to think of ownership of the land in terms of the effort needed to make other folk work it for you... would that suit?

But you advocated it... or so it seem'd: "Hence, my first thought is that it is the effort it takes to make land productive that is the basis of ownership." Perhaps it would be better for you to think of ownership of the land in terms of the effort needed to make other folk work it for you... would that suit? — Banno

If you've got to the point where you have land and capital - to say nothing of the ideas, and the will, and someone else has nothing but their labour, I see no problem that 'other folk work it for you' ...because your contribution to the productive endeavour far outweighs theirs.

But that aside, I assumed we we're talking about ownership of land from when the world was new - i.e. the first man who drove in a stake, and dug a ditch, and said this is mine, was the true founder of civil society. Not the golden age of capitalism.

It's just that your first thought was that being able to work the land was the basis of ownership. I see you are backing away from that; that working in a factory does not imply ownership. Now you want to add a "first man", a mythological patriarch, an Adam, a protocapitalist.

Looks a bit like ownership isn't quite what you thought.

Of course, the first folk to work the land did so in small family groups, sharing produce on the basis of need, with no notion of individual ownership. But that doesn't suit your narrative.

Is there any legal / moral framework that can be used to resolve these issues in an impartial manner? — EricH

Arbitrator and negotiations. The two parties can't decide but with war. A third party who can beat both sides in war, but has no interest in the ownership, can be an arbitrator.

This was used many times in history, except the arbitrator in international interest was always a victorious power and an interested party in the ownership. In other words, there is no moral or legal solution in the absence of an arbitrator.

Intro-country, the law prevails and judges via the court systems are the arbitrators (in extreme disputes).

Between or among two or more very powerful and rich countries, each of which stands to lose much more than the value of the property should they go to war over the ownership of the property, will negotiate. How successful these negotiations are depends on the skills of the negotiators of each party.

It's just that your first thought was that being able to work the land was the basis of ownership. I see you are backing away from that; that working in a factory does not imply ownership. Now you want to add a "first man", a mythological patriarch, an Adam, a protocapitalist.

Looks a bit like ownership isn't quite what you thought.

Of course, the first folk to work the land did so in small family groups, sharing produce on the basis of need, with no notion of individual ownership. But that doesn't suit your narrative. — Banno

I don't have a narrative per se. What I have, as you seem to already know, is some first thoughts - on what I agreed with the OP is a very difficult question. I understood that question to mean, how ownership of land is originally established. If that's not the question - what is?

I don't really have a narrative per se. — counterpunch

You are dropping the myth of the "First Man", too?

how ownership of land is originally established — counterpunch

As I said, by convention. Folk accepted that Martha over there could look after that digging stick, so as she could help with the gathering.

Further, and in answer to the OP, it's still about convention.

And even further, that it is merely convention explains why it is so hard to settle disputes when there is no agreement on the convention. There are no facts of ownership, apart from what it is we agree on.

What that means for your first man is, despite working the land, he did not own it until his neighbours agreed that he owned it.

That is, the self-made individual Man of capitalist myth can only exist if we let him. So his claim to be a self-made individual is an inherent contradiction.

This is fun.

That, by the way, was my answer to the problem with individualism. But few there were who recognised it's brilliance.

Maybe what you wrote will make sense to me tomorrow. Oh dear, it's already tomorrow, and it's still nonsense. Ah well, logging off.

Sweet dreams.

@Banno

I understood that question to mean, how ownership of land is originally established. If that's not the question - what is? — counterpunch

Sorry if the OP wasn't clear. Basing current ownership on original ownership is one possible solution to resolving these situations, but not necessarily the only (or best) solution. And of course there are many (maybe most) real world situations that are much more complex than simply A vs. B.

If the question is about current ownership then the person with their name on the title deeds would seem to be the answer.

And of course there are many (maybe most) real world situations that are much more complex than simply A vs. B. — EricH

I totally agree with that. The British had to deal with very complex situations throughout the empire but especially in East Africa where natives had to compete with intruding Europeans, Indians, etc.

The solution suggested by the Colonial Office at the time was "native paramountcy" which meant that the rights of the native population were paramount in relation to the rights of other groups.

Personally, I tend to believe that this wasn't a bad idea.

Tragedy of the commons is best seen in a public toilet :(.

I think our whole notion of land-ownership has led us to the brink of catastrophe. Nobody owns the land. We human beings share it with myriad other life forms. If we do think of ourselves as somehow privileged in our relationship to the earth, then it can only be as caretakers. So whoever is prepared to look after the land to the maximum benefit of the natural order is the rightful 'owner'.

Tragedy of the commons is best seen in a public toilet :( — schopenhauer1

:100:

:100: I agree, but I'm a'feared few others do. When we figure out we can't breath, drink or eat money, we might come around. Too bad about all the biodiversity lost in the interim. :sad:

Ownership is conventional.

When folk disagree as to the conventions in play, there can be no final arbiter. — Banno

I'm assuming (but correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't subscribe to moral subjectivism, but do believe there is a moral right and wrong that can be generally deciphered when a moral question is presented. My question then would be why you isolate ownership specifically from ought type questions.

Why is it that you can say it's morally wrong for me to murder, for example, but you can't say it's morally wrong for me to take your land (i.e. why is "thou shall not steal" a proper moral imperative?).

Should I take your bicycle from your garage and hold it as my own, would you be incorrect in asserting my thievery were a moral wrong? Was my theft really just a violation of convention (i.e. the convention not to take other's belongings?).

If I murder, is that a different sort of wrong, or is that just also a violation of convention? Describe the difference between moral wrongs and violations of conventions?

If the question is about current ownership then the person with their name on the title deeds would seem to be the answer. — counterpunch

So if current owner obtained the title deeds by killing a previous owner (or forcing them off the property) - the descendants of the previous owner have no legitimate claim?

So if current owner obtained the title deeds by killing a previous owner (or forcing them off the property) - the descendants of the previous owner have no legitimate claim? — EricH

Good point. JUSTICE is an essential factor that we can't afford to ignore if we don't want to return to the law of the jungle. Justice must be the very foundation of national and international law at all times.

So if current owner obtained the title deeds by killing a previous owner (or forcing them off the property) - the descendants of the previous owner have no legitimate claim? — EricH

Was the hypothetical previous owner a citizen of a terrorist state, intent on genocide, that refused any and all compromises offered, decade after decade? Because if they were, then the legitimate claim of the descendants of the previous owners would be against an intractable government, and their foreign policy failure!

My question then would be why you isolate ownership specifically from ought type questions. — Hanover

I don't. All things being equal, one ought abide by agreed conventions. That's what an agreed convention is.

Which is preferable, a person who is true to their word or a person who is not?

...JUSTICE... — Apollodorus

What's that, then?

What's that then? — Banno

Justice is the implementation of what is legally and morally right, the principle that people receive what they deserve or what is rightfully theirs.

Greek dike, Latin justitia, Hebrew tsedaqah

In the British East Africa example given above, justice provided that the land belonged to the African natives, not to Europeans or Indians.

Justice is the implementation of what is legally and morally right, — Apollodorus

And what's "legally and morally right"?

Further, do you suppose that these are consistent? That what is legally right is what is morally right? How do you decide, if they were to be in conflict?

The basic point being, these terms less clear than is "property".

Further, do you suppose that these are consistent? That what is legally right is what is morally right? How do you decide, if they were to be in conflict? — Banno

That's the thing. Legal and moral justice need to be balanced or harmonized, with moral justice ideally overriding legal justice. That's what we have legal experts for. The principle that Africa belongs to Africans is morally and legally sound in my opinion.

The real question is "will ever logical people will outstand in numbers to others? Or it won't never happen?" if yes then there is hope that at hundreds of years after people will be able to push politics too in that direction. So they will come to a point to realize that noone can own something that can't keep forever!and what is done is done!end of story. You can't change it simply! So what you do next? A country B country conflict for land. The undeniable right is (the right that country's C citizens for example would recognize) on country's B side. But country A is stronger (in all fields) so that will Never change! So if I were in country's B position and If I really wanted to solve the problem! Or else as logical I would realize that it will never never solved otherwise and that impact for my country's citizens will never get improved (economy, wars, life conditions all). So the Most logical thing to do is to realize that I will have to accept my Defeat! (I know that you will come for me for that). But yes I would accept that I have to lose if I want to improve people's life! So the critical point is to give all my "power" to gain as much as I could while losing. To achieve the best worst conditions!wherever land conflicts ended for whatever reason people's life conditions got better for both at the end! I know that the actual reality things are muchhh more complicated. But I m talking about the logical thought root that will turn human efforts to that side. Plus don't forget what was my hypothesis. An idealistic world that logical people will be more so the political plan would be allreadyy announced to citizens from the start.As to know what they get.take away the Excuse from them!So it will be their decision. In fact maybe that will need much more. Let's say 70-30%. I know that probably of course that will never happen.

The principle that Africa belongs to Africans is morally and legally sound in my opinion. — Apollodorus

But your opinion is insufficient.