I'll start by being philosophical. How can you really "own" land? You
are only here a short time and the land will go on long after you are
dead. Therefore, you can only manage it for a short time.
The problem I see with land "ownership" (and therefore its treatment as a
commodity) is that people feel they can do whatever they want to the
land. Since what they do affects others (we can't all live upstream) in
the present and most certainly affects others in the future, this is a
problem. We need to consider land "stewardship" rather than ownership --
taking the best care of this land while we are here, reaping some benefit
from the land while being careful to consider the other people, species
(both now and in the future) who depend on "your" land. Property lines
are a human creation that generally don't fit with the way nature divides
the land. Your fenceline may divide an animal's natural habitat in two.
Yes, we are rather in a commune. We and many other species depend on the
Earth. We're all in this together. Therefore, I think I have a right to
demand that you are responsible with your treatment of the land so that I
and future people have clean water, clean air and the plants and animals
necessary for survival of our ecosystem.
Anyway, when land is treated as a commodity, with little thought to what
I've said above, it leads to an emphasis on gaining the highest possible
economic benefit from the land, rather than considering one's
reponsibility of stewardship. We need to have a land ethic that puts
more value on land than just money.
Diane Prorak
On Wed, 8 Mar 1995, WIEST JAMES ANDREW wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 1995, Kenton wrote:
>
> > "*Land is a commodity to be bought and sold like any other.
> >
> > "*Unrestricted automobility is a basic American right.
> >
> > "* The largest possible house on the largest possible lot is analogous
> > to the 'pursuit of happiness' that comes after life and liberty.
> >
> > --The Boise Weekly, Feb. 23-March 1, 1995, page 5
> >
> Hi All,
>
> Perhaps someone would care to enlighten me as to why these statements,
> while perhaps simplistic, are not valid? Are we a commune where the land
> belongs to everyone and others get to "vote" on what I can do, when,
> where, and with whom on my own property? Or are *private* property rights
> passe'? While our actions are "voted" on by *criminal* and civil law,
> should true "ownership" of land be a crime? What about cars? Who will
> decide who can have one and for what reasons? How big may we make our
> houses, and who decides this? When does this line of logic end?
> Totalitarianism perhaps? Just asking...
>
>
> Best,
>
> Andy
>
>