Maybe I'm wrong here, (if so feel free to disregard) but isn't their evidence of fights between hunter-gatherer tribes? What else would they have to fight about besides land? If your group hunts a piece a land exclusively, and is willing to fight to defend it, doesn't that make it private?
Originally posted by dryhumpIf the entire society owns something, than it's not "private" its "collective" ownership.
Maybe I'm wrong here, (if so feel free to disregard) but isn't their evidence of fights between hunter-gatherer tribes? What else would they have to fight about besides land? If your group hunts a piece a land exclusively, and is willing to fight to defend it, doesn't that make it private?
Originally posted by no1marauderI understand your point. What I was trying to get at is if tribe A claims certain hunting grounds and will defend that claim against tribe B, wouldn't that imply a sort of corporate ownership? Certainly, no one person in tribe A claims to own the land, but as a whole the tribe claims ownership. Wouldn't that make it private, although not owned by a single person?
If the entire society owns something, than it's not "private" its "collective" ownership.
Originally posted by dryhumpNo. An entire society is not a "corporation". Nor is it "private".
I understand your point. What I was trying to get at is if tribe A claims certain hunting grounds and will defend that claim against tribe B, wouldn't that imply a sort of corporate ownership? Certainly, no one person in tribe A claims to own the land, but as a whole the tribe claims ownership. Wouldn't that make it private, although not owned by a single person?
Originally posted by no1marauderOwnership of land stems from adopting agriculture instead of nomadism as a way of life. Agriculture provides a more stable, consistent food source and so is an evolutionary adaption. In particular, you can store your extra food against shortages since you no longer are forced to carry everything with you Of course, you have to own the land you farm and defend it or agriculture doesn't work.
Does evidence that individual ownership of land didn't exist in our natural state i.e hunter gatherer bands severely damage to Locke's claim that we have a natural right to appropriate it (subject to the Lockean proviso of course)? Consider:
A natural right must be something that all humans want
or need as part of being human and som ...[text shortened]... roperty collectively.218
http://www.usbig.net/papers/206-Widerquist-Stone%20Age--Oct-09.pdf
But I would dispute that agriculture is unnatural. It is a completely natural consequence for an animal with opposable thumbs, upright posture, and large brains.
Originally posted by spruce112358No one said agriculture is "unnatural".
Ownership of land stems from adopting agriculture instead of nomadism as a way of life. Agriculture provides a more stable, consistent food source and so is an evolutionary adaption. In particular, you can store your extra food against shortages since you no longer are forced to carry everything with you Of course, you have to own the land you farm and ...[text shortened]... ely natural consequence for an animal with opposable thumbs, upright posture, and large brains.
No, you personally don't have to own the land you farm or agriculture doesn't work.
Originally posted by no1marauderA hunter-gatherer might not worry about land ownership because he hasn't invested any time in growing anything in any particular place. He just wanders around and collects what he finds. A farmer worries a lot about ownership because he has bet his future on an investment of time and energy that he put into growing something on a particular spot. So as long as a farmer is investing in a certain piece of land, yes, he must have rights to or "own" that land. He can't just allow a gatherer to come wandering through and collect off it.
No one said agriculture is "unnatural".
No, you personally don't have to own the land you farm or agriculture doesn't work.
Neither is a more natural outlook. One is simpler, the other more highly evolved.
Originally posted by spruce112358The vast majority of farmers of the land throughout history didn't own the piece of land they farmed.
A hunter-gatherer might not worry about land ownership because he hasn't invested any time in growing anything in any particular place. He just wanders around and collects what he finds. A farmer worries a lot about ownership because he has bet his future on an investment of time and energy that he put into growing something on a particular spot. So as ...[text shortened]... off it.
Neither is a more natural outlook. One is simpler, the other more highly evolved.
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358Spruce is making sense to me no1. For Locke, isn't property derived from a person "mixing his labour" with something nature provided? There's no question a farmer mixes his labour with the land, but does a hunter/gather do the same?
A hunter-gatherer might not worry about land ownership because he hasn't invested any time in growing anything in any particular place. He just wanders around and collects what he finds. A farmer worries a lot about ownership because he has bet his future on an investment of time and energy that he put into growing something on a particular spot. So as off it.
Neither is a more natural outlook. One is simpler, the other more highly evolved.
Originally posted by SleepyguyBut Locke is historically wrong:
Spruce is making sense to me no1. For Locke, isn't property derived from a person "mixing his labour" with something nature provided? There's no question a farmer mixes his labour with the land, but does a hunter/gather do the same?
The earliest farmers held land collectively. The
earliest individual property owners were chiefs who were both governments and owners. Early
39
private holders obtained their position by service to the state. And taxation, rather than
developing is an infringement on private property, developed along with the move from
collective to private property rights. The only connection private title holders have to original
appropriation seems to be through the state. This general pattern is not repeated step-for-step in
all cases, but the patterned that would be seen if they the individual appropriation hypothesis
were true (“homesteaders” appropriate unused land) is clearly absent.
Originally posted by no1marauderThomas Paine, in his work 'Agrarian Justice', makes the following observations about the origin of private property (from Wikipedia):
Locke: whereas in the beginning and first peopling of the great common of the world, it was quite otherwise. The law man was under, was rather for appropriating. God commanded, and his wants forced him to labour. That was his property which could not be taken from him where-ever he had fixed it. And hence subduing or cultivating the earth, and having dom ...[text shortened]... me this severely damages the Lockean claim that one gets to own land merely by cultivating it.
The work is based on the contention that in the state of nature, "the earth, in its natural uncultivated state... was the common property of the human race"; the concept of private ownership arose as a necessary result of the development of agriculture, since it was impossible to distinguish the possession of improvements to the land from the possession of the land itself. Thus Paine views private property as necessary, but that the basic needs of all humanity must be provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public. This in some sense is their "payment" to non-property holders for the right to hold private property.
Originally posted by no1marauderCommunal farming is relatively rare. The incentive to under-contribute is large.
But Locke is historically wrong:
The earliest farmers held land collectively. The
earliest individual property owners were chiefs who were both governments and owners. Early
39
private holders obtained their position by service to the state. And taxation, rather than
developing is an infringement on private property, developed a ...[text shortened]... appropriation hypothesis
were true (“homesteaders” appropriate unused land) is clearly absent.
Originally posted by no1marauderBut most have had the right to a particular piece of land for their personal use.
The vast majority of farmers of the land throughout history didn't own the piece of land they farmed.
Once you have a farm and a hovel to store extra food in -- you have the beginning of human territoriality. You also sow the seeds of specialization, which leads to increased technology, which leads -- ultimately -- to Forums on chess websites.
The hunter-gatherer thinks mostly along the lines of "find food -- get food -- eat food." All that we are beyond thoughts of our bellies is due to private ownership of land and territoriality.
Originally posted by no1marauderWere you under the impression that Locke was "historically" right?
But Locke is historically wrong:
I thought it generally understood Locke's Treatise on Civil Government was more of an exercise in reason than an accurate portrayal of man's early history. I never thought of Locke's "State of Nature" as being "historical", but more a handy device allowing him to discuss and lay a foundation for individual rights (to counter Hobbes). It's not surprising to me that anthropology or evolutionary psychology (or whatever) would find discrepancy with Locke's theory.
So the question is now that you have the discrepancy, what are you going to do with it? Isn't Locke's premise for the process by which land becomes property basically the same as for property in general? Weakening property rights in modern society would not be an unsurprising goal for a paper hosted on the website of The U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network. Are you ready to chuck property rights based on the theories represented in the linked paper?
Collective ownership of productive agricultural land by hunter-gatherers assumes a certain maximum population density in which there is little need for competition i.e. the natural state. Civilized humanity supports a much higher population but requires some model of land ownership I think. The land you need to earn your living cannot be taken from you rightfully. Now, a small family group can and often does treat land as a collective good within the family more or less, but that is not inconsistent with individual land ownership.
The problem comes when you own land you aren't using and you demand a cut of someone else's hard earned profits in order for them to use "your" land. Then you simply become a parasitic sludge that gunks up the economic machine and occasionally makes it stop working entirely until it's cleaned out.