Sunday, February 21, 2010
Rousseau
It's pretty clear, even from this excerpt from The Origins of Inequality, that Rousseau prefers what he calls savagery to civilization, and thinks it's all been downhill -- though inevitably and irreversibly so -- since we abandoned near-total self-sufficiency. Leaving aside the dubious historicity of this image, what he seems most vociferously down on is the ownership of land -- just the concern Shelby raised with respect to Locke. As we saw, it's not so clear that full ownership is the right model for land use rights even on Lockean assumptions, given what we now understand about ecological processes and the scarcity of sustainably productive land in the current century. Perhaps, unlike the obviously appropriate private ownership of personal items like clothes and toothbrushes, all land should be held in some sort of commons trusts, and leased to those who will use it wisely.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I wonder what using it "wisely" means, only because the individuals cutting down rain forest might consider it a wise venture to cut down homes of various creatures in order to help facilitate others consumerist needs. Likewise who is to say that buying out large sums of land with the intention of someday selling it off in bits to the highest bidder is not a wise personal investment, although that land may not be use for quite a bit of time?
Ever since the economy's decline, the value of land has decreased. This gives an obvious advantage to those who can purchase land, but such an advantage should not be taken for granted.
Reasons for purchasing land ought not be solely for one's own advantages. Instead, the reasons should be based around community and providing jobs (e.g. building parks, erecting wind turbines etc...). Land that is leased should be given to those who intend to puruse community based endeavors that could boost the economy.
On that note, the Florida Forever bill is an example of taking advantage of cheap land costs for good reasons. The bill intends to expand state parks and provide more jobs. This bill promotes land conservation and economic contributions. Apparently, 65% of the people that visit Florida participate in outdoor recreation activities; state parks provide Florida nearly $1 billion dollars to local communities.
By "wise" here I mean something like "sustainable," since land is something we hold in trust for all humanity and future generations. (As they say in the real estate racket, they ain't making any more dirt. This is strictly false, of course, but they certainly ain't making it very fast -- forests and tundra build about an inch of soil every millennium.)
it may be a matter of semantics to everyone else, but land doesn't need an owner at all. instead of switching ownership from private property to the commons, i think it is our attitude that needs to change towards nature. it is the only sure way to make things better. you can change the law, but 30 years down the road they are going to change it again and again. we focus on changing the world around us rather than changing ourselves and our outlook on the world. if we treated nature as a 'thou' rather than an 'it' it would require the same respect that we owe our mother for providing us with the opportunity to exist, and hence mother nature. all other issues concerning property fall under this.
realistically (aka settling for less) i would be willing to give up all private land to the commons with the freedom from trespassing. but all disrespect to the common's property would require direct retribution plus something appropriate. in other words, a company that dumps chemicals can't just throw money at the problem and go about their business, they must take full responsibility. does everyone agree that for someone to gratuitously disrespect property that they should have to extend their means of retribution beyond fixing the problem itself. i suppose at another time in my life i would say that it should be equal, but now i'm more obliged to think that there should be a little more compensation than removing the waste (in the situation of the company dumping chemicals) not so much as a deterrent but because someone willfully and purposely harmed the commons in the attempt of selfish advancement, so more than direct compensation could still be appropriate.
Post a Comment