Opinion
Lab
Lab
See how this opinion breaks down by gender, political spectrum and generation — and who shares your view.
Gender
AGREEDISAGREE
Male
Female
5 comments
For
Lucy_P5y ago
**To protect livelihoods we need a legal contract of ownerships.**
- If no body owns land, how do we stop others from stealing it? The only thing that really stops people from coming in and stealing your land is the legal contract that says it is yours.
- If you don’t have that legal contract, there is nothing to stop anyone from coming in and taking what is yours. I recognise that owning land is mostly unfair as its owned by rich aristocratic families. But, individuals still need to own land in order to slowly change the statistics of ownership across the world.
- Half of the UK is owned by [1%](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjdosCT1rPyAhVIhf0HHbnkDa8QFnoECAIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fmoney%2F2019%2Fapr%2F17%2Fwho-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author&usg=AOvVaw3cXxuRstGNPy8bPLcSmVxE) of the population. This is because of estates and cooperation’s control the rest of England. It is important that individuals get to own land, to stop the large owners from controlling all the land. The only way to stop this, is for it to be legal to own land.
··
rabidfox4y ago
This sounds more like you are against the idea nobody should own lands is your argument that collectives should have limits on the land they can buy vs the individuals?
··
Mixed
epalmer4y ago
**Nobody should individually be able to own land, yet this does not mutually exclude the opinion that _everyone_ should own land**
- Firstly it must be noted that no one can actually “own land” in our legal system, rather one only owns the rights to land. No one can directly own (that is, have complete claim to) the land itself.
- However this is how I will continue to refer to land ownership for the sake of conversation.
- It is important to distinguish between public and private land ownership.
**Private Ownership**
- Property or land is privately owned by individuals or private companies.
- It caters to the needs of the few (the owner) and disregards or even violates the needs of the many.
- Enhances the personal freedom of the owners, but at the expense of the freedom of the many.
- Much of privately owned land or institutions is publically funded but neither publically owned nor publically beneficial.
- It leads to unaffordability in land, products, services and ammenities as well as being a substantial factor in homelessness and the [housing crisis](https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/land-and-housing-crisis).
**Public Ownership**
- Public ownership is also sometimes known as nationalisation.
- Land or establishments are communally owned by a government-run organisation for the benefit of all members of society.
- Resources can be distributed fairly, and more effectively based on need.
- This includes workers wages which are distributed more equitably without the hierarchy of an individual ownership of the company.
- Land can be used more productively according to the needs of the many in society, and property is not hoarded by the wealthy with no need for such extensive estate.
- Decisions about the use of land are made collectively and democratically.
- The rich are often detached and disenfranchised from the needs and workings of the industries they own, so collective ownership eradicated the problems associated with this.
··
rabidfox4y ago
In regards to publically owned land, how would you respond to the tragedy of the commons?
··
epalmer4y ago
This is a really interesting question, thank you for raising it.
The first thing I would mention is that I don't believe commons need necessarily, or even _should_ equal the unregulation of such resources.
Regardless, even with some level of regulation, many of the issues which arise in actual and potential tragedies of commons are not issues with the fact that there are common resources but the fact that they are still able to be exploited by privatization. Thus the problem still lies with privately owned property, and those with disproportionate power.
Additionally, in present society, often those who have the power to set these regulations on commons, or lack of such regulations, are also those with the power to able to selfishly exploit the resources themselves (and intend to do so). Hence those in power will not likely set regulations on commons which are there to serve common good, rather they set them to serve themselves. This is one cause for such tragedies that needs addressing.
I'd love to have a proper debate on this issue alone, so perhaps you would consider submitting it as a stand-alone opinion on Parlia?
··
Sign up or log in to post a comment.
Are we missing an argument?
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!