Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

No

[FearfulJesuit]

In Nunavut, in the north of Canada, there's no such thing as owning a piece of land. Everybody owns it- the community owns it. If you want to build on a piece of land, you go ask the elders (who are the spokespeople for the community), and they'll rarely turn you down- land in Nunavut is cheaper than the dirt it's made of.

This, I think, could work in the U.S. No longer having landlords, the community around an unoccupied land owns it, and would vote on a house being built there, or a factory, or a business. If there is money exchanged, it's a small deposit. And referenda could be called if needed (the factory's ruining the river or something). Personally I think it's a great model of land ownership.

So, what do you think? Is it time to give collectivism another try?

[NRDL]

That sounds....communist.  I don't mean that in a bad way, I actually like communism, this idea sounds intriguing.  A space of land owned by the collective instead of the individual? It sounds...nice.  If it had been introduced during the feudal era, everyone would have been trying to kill each other.

But yeah, it sounds cool. 

[Criptfeind]

So, what do you think? Is it time to give collectivism another try?

No.

That said, I would not be against the government owning all land per say, although I would not see it as idea and I would like to know how improvements would be handled.

Of course we can't really do that NOW, cause people already own land and there is no way to get it back. But it might be able to work when we move to space and stuff.

[NRDL]

So, you mean, if humanity finds completely new land, then collectivism has a chance?

[Criptfeind]

Not in reality, but idealistically sure.

Whoops: No.

But maybe (read: Not in reality, but idealistically sure.) all government owned land.

[NRDL]

Wait, is the land going to be owned by the government, or through voting by the people?  I'm a bit confused here. 

[Criptfeind]

Presumably a republic system. People vote for the government and the government controls the land.

[NRDL]

Presumably a republic system. People vote for the government and the government controls the land.

I thought it said in the OP that the community, not the government controls it.  The people who have a stake in the land just vote, when there is decision making concerning the land. 

[alway]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
ATM, territory in space is unowned and can not be owned by a single group/nation. Though I would be willing to bet that treaty will be dead by mid century.

The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet, since they are the Common heritage of mankind.[2] Art. II of the Treaty states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means". However, the State that launches a space object retains jurisdiction and control over that object

Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty deals with international responsibility, stating that "the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" and that States Parties shall bear international responsibility for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities.

Compared to all the other potential future flustercucks, territory in space has been pretty well laid down in international law.

[NRDL]

Laws can definitely be changed.  The reason for that law is because no one is actually colonizing space yet, which means this law sets everything equal.  When we actually do start colonizing, the different countries and organizations will do whatever they can to get a foothold in space, as long as there's something valuable there.  And really, space exploration and colonization isn't what this topic is about, it's about whether a collective ownership of land by a community is a feasible idea. 

[Criptfeind]

Presumably a republic system. People vote for the government and the government controls the land.

I thought it said in the OP that the community, not the government controls it.  The people who have a stake in the land just vote, when there is decision making concerning the land. 

Right...

1: That is on a tiny scale and would not work for nations.

2: The government still controls it in that case, it is a panel of elders who have been 'elected' by the general agreement among the community that they are smart enough to manage it's affairs.

[NRDL]

Yes, that's what I'm talking about, on a small scale, not a nation.  The towns and small cities could make this work, even if there were a few thousand people who could vote, it really wouldn't be that hard or time consuming to count the votes, especially considering the internet. 

On the government issue, the "elders" mentioned are just representatives of the people, they're there so that decision-making would be more efficient.  They don't necessarily command the community, they just represent it. 

[Criptfeind]

Are you like talking about dissolving nations and just sticking to groups of a few thousand then?

[NRDL]

Are you like talking about dissolving nations and just sticking to groups of a few thousand then?

I'm saying, each small city or town can do this collectivism thing.  States would exist, countries and nations would exist, but at the local level, collectivism is possible. 

[Criptfeind]

I guess in theory it could work, although it would most likely clash with city, state, and national interests at sometimes. And arguments among the places themselves.

And of course the fact that it is far to late to do something like this.