Land, Owning land, Sharing land, Defending land, Etc.

[HondurasKeiser]

Grace, I'm not in favor of that. It seems like an idea designed to renew and sustain ill will rather than heal and repent.

I think she's holding it up as a counterbalance to Ernie's assertion that the Lenape especially, were peaceful and desirous of sharing the land. I don't think she was using the story to whip up a crowd of Hochstetler descendants against the Lenape. It may have been a one-off event and Ernie may be correct that the Lenape were uniquely gentle and munificent. If though, we're going to study history and speak truthfully about it, I think it's good to study and speak about history as a whole, warts and all; not glossing over the ugly aspects for X,Y or Z reasons.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Private ownership of land is a fairly novel thing in the whole history of humanity. Private property itself is uncommon in the history of the world, but ownership of land in particular is an idea that is widespread around the world today, but if you look at all of history, it's either a thing that just didn't occur to most cultures, or it was specifically viewed as a wrong idea.

There is a different between 1) "posession," 2) "property," and 3) "private property." Most humans at most time in history have had an understanding of the first, and many societies formed understandings of the second. The third is a small blip on the whole history of humanity. The earliest thing that can conceivably be called private property is found in the systems utilized by the Roman Empire. Most civilizations prior to and apart from the Roman's or the historical/cultural influence of the Roman's practiced forms of property most would call "usufruct". Europe toward the end of the middle ages began rebuilding legal systems of private ownership, as the whole "ad fontes" movement brought in the renaissance and an implicit desire to bring back the success of the Roman Empire led to the systems we, 500+ years later, are used to with private property.

[Grace]

Grace, I'm not in favor of that. It seems like an idea designed to renew and sustain ill will rather than heal and repent.

I think she's holding it up as a counterbalance to Ernie's assertion that the Lenape especially, were peaceful and desirous of sharing the land. I don't think she was using the story to whip up a crowd of Hochstetler descendants against the Lenape. It may have been a one-off event and Ernie may be correct that the Lenape were uniquely gentle and munificent. If though, we're going to study history and speak truthfully about it, I think it's good to study and speak about history as a whole, warts and all; not glossing over the ugly aspects for X,Y or Z reasons.

Thanks, and I agree. I don't think anything should be done to cause ill-will. However it is part of the history in that area.

https://www.jhfa.net/reading-eagle-massacre-story

[Neto]

Abraham, a nomad, bought a field from someone who "owned it" as a burial place....

[ken_sylvania]

Private ownership of land is a fairly novel thing in the whole history of humanity. Private property itself is uncommon in the history of the world, but ownership of land in particular is an idea that is widespread around the world today, but if you look at all of history, it's either a thing that just didn't occur to most cultures, or it was specifically viewed as a wrong idea.

There is a different between 1) "posession," 2) "property," and 3) "private property." Most humans at most time in history have had an understanding of the first, and many societies formed understandings of the second. The third is a small blip on the whole history of humanity. The earliest thing that can conceivably be called private property is found in the systems utilized by the Roman Empire. Most civilizations prior to and apart from the Roman's or the historical/cultural influence of the Roman's practiced forms of property most would call "usufruct". Europe toward the end of the middle ages began rebuilding legal systems of private ownership, as the whole "ad fontes" movement brought in the renaissance and an implicit desire to bring back the success of the Roman Empire led to the systems we, 500+ years later, are used to with private property.

How do you define the difference between posession, property and private property?

[Ken]

Private ownership of land is a fairly novel thing in the whole history of humanity. Private property itself is uncommon in the history of the world, but ownership of land in particular is an idea that is widespread around the world today, but if you look at all of history, it's either a thing that just didn't occur to most cultures, or it was specifically viewed as a wrong idea.

There is a different between 1) "posession," 2) "property," and 3) "private property." Most humans at most time in history have had an understanding of the first, and many societies formed understandings of the second. The third is a small blip on the whole history of humanity. The earliest thing that can conceivably be called private property is found in the systems utilized by the Roman Empire. Most civilizations prior to and apart from the Roman's or the historical/cultural influence of the Roman's practiced forms of property most would call "usufruct". Europe toward the end of the middle ages began rebuilding legal systems of private ownership, as the whole "ad fontes" movement brought in the renaissance and an implicit desire to bring back the success of the Roman Empire led to the systems we, 500+ years later, are used to with private property.

Private ownership of land is certainly a well-understood concept in both the Old and New Testaments.

Deuteronomy 19:14: "You shall not remove your neighbor's landmark, which the men of old have set, in your inheritance which you will inherit in the land. . . ."

1 Kings 21: Some time later there was an incident involving a vineyard belonging to Naboth the Jezreelite. The vineyard was in Jezreel, close to the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. Ahab said to Naboth, “Let me have your vineyard to use for a vegetable garden, since it is close to my palace. In exchange I will give you a better vineyard or, if you prefer, I will pay you whatever it is worth.” But Naboth replied, “The Lord forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my ancestors.”

Acts 5:1-4 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet. Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

[Ernie]

Grace, I'm not in favor of that. It seems like an idea designed to renew and sustain ill will rather than heal and repent.

I think she's holding it up as a counterbalance to Ernie's assertion that the Lenape especially, were peaceful and desirous of sharing the land. I don't think she was using the story to whip up a crowd of Hochstetler descendants against the Lenape. It may have been a one-off event and Ernie may be correct that the Lenape were uniquely gentle and munificent. If though, we're going to study history and speak truthfully about it, I think it's good to study and speak about history as a whole, warts and all; not glossing over the ugly aspects for X,Y or Z reasons.

Mennonites are referred to as one of the peace churches. That doesn't mean all Mennonites have acted peacefully. In all of the splits and splinters, there have been a lot of pieces makers rather than peace makers. But still, Mennonites and other peace churches tend to kill less people than the rest of the world and many have been peace makers, even in the midst of nasty church splits. So I think it is fair to include Mennonites with the peace churches without always mentioning the exceptions.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

How do you define the difference between posession, property and private property?

Possession is somewhat self-descriptive. Most people and societies develop some sort of idea about how certain things have a proper place "with" a specific person or small group of people. The anvil belongs to the blacksmith. Those cows belong to the dairy farmer. This house is for my family. Etc. There is no formalized system to mere possession; it operates on the underlying shares assumptions within a society, a sort of unstated natural consensus.

Property is the formalization, or systemization, of possession. It is a formalized system of declaring where possessions belong. Generally speaking, "possession" might be a natural consequence of more than one human being in community together, but "property" is instituted by a state, or a state-level entity. Property is somewhat of a legal distinction, not a natural one. It has the ability to deal with the rare problems that "mere possession" cannot deal with, those instances where it might be unclear to whom a certain thing "belongs". Since property is a legal system, it also guarantees certain "rights" to the humans to whom are designated ownership over things. Different forms of property grant different rights (see next paragraph).

Private Property is a type of property that gives far greater individual power over held property than most historical systems of property.
Property privilege generally consist of a number of rights granted to the "owner"; private property has 3:
1) The right to use the thing (usus);
2) The right to partake in the products created by the use of the thing (fructus);
3) The right to freely, and mostly without oversight or accountability, to dispose of the thing (abusus).

So, if I am a blacksmith, I own the anvil. I have the full right to use it without anyone giving me a hard time. The things I produce with it (swords and stuff) automatically become mine in the same way the anvil is. Lastly, when I do not want the anvil anymore, I can dispose of it how I please. I can sell it to someone, I can give it to my son to keep a family hold on the local blacksmithing business, or i can chuck it into the bottom of the ocean so no one else can use it.

The reason private property is distinct from most other historic forms of property is the last point. Most human societies pre-Roman Empire practiced what would be referred to as "usufruct". This is a form of property where an "owner" is given the right to use a thing, and the fruits of the use of the thing are also given to them, but they were not given perpetual ownership of the thing. The "abusus" of the thing, the right to destroy or dispose of the thing, was not granted.
So under usufruct, I am a blacksmith, I own the whole shop, the anvil, etc. For whatever reason, my family and I decide to move to another town several days' travel away. We don't pack up the stuff and take it with us; we don't sell it at a make-up price; it goes into the hands of the next worthy blacksmith. It basically "permenantly" belongs to the township; it temporarily belongs to the town blacksmith. The blacksmith has full rights to use it and enjoy the fruits of his laboring with it, but it's only his as long as he is "the town blacksmith". If he decides not to be that anymore, it's just not longer his. The right to dispose of the thing as he sees fit is not granted by usufruct. This third right was developed by the Romans and was unique at the time.

Private property, as distinct from usufruct, grants the rights to property in exclusivity, and more specifically in perpetuity.



So private property is a form of property, but not all property is private property. Property is a formalization of our understanding of possession, but not all possession is property (you probably possess a lot of things that aren't necessarily your property... do you have a sales receipt for every item in your house.)

One last very salient note: when possession becomes formalized as property, and especially when owners gain greater power through private property, an interesting thing can happen: my "possessions" might not be my "property", and my "property" might not be in my "possession".
For example, the possession of a tool is widely understood (by most human societies throughout history) as belonging to the person actively using the thing. So, I'm the village blacksmith, I possess the anvil because I use it every day. But I work for Anvil Inc, a private corporation that operates local blacksmith shops. The anvil is the private property of the owner of the company, not mine. As a skilled employee of Anvil, Inc. I essentially "lease" the anvil to play my trade. I am granted the right to use the anvil, but the profits go to the company, and they have full right of abuses as well.
Another example is that of a landlord and a renter. If I am renting from a landlord, where I live is "my home" so it is in my possession. But it is not "my house", because it is not my property. These sorts of situations where property and possession are no longer clearly linked leads to widespread feelings of alienation in the working class (other than small business owners) and in the rentier class.

[Neto]

How do you define the difference between posession, property and private property?

Possession is somewhat self-descriptive. Most people and societies develop some sort of idea about how certain things have a proper place "with" a specific person or small group of people. The anvil belongs to the blacksmith. Those cows belong to the dairy farmer. This house is for my family. Etc. There is no formalized system to mere possession; it operates on the underlying shares assumptions within a society, a sort of unstated natural consensus.

Property is the formalization, or systemization, of possession. It is a formalized system of declaring where possessions belong. Generally speaking, "possession" might be a natural consequence of more than one human being in community together, but "property" is instituted by a state, or a state-level entity. Property is somewhat of a legal distinction, not a natural one. It has the ability to deal with the rare problems that "mere possession" cannot deal with, those instances where it might be unclear to whom a certain thing "belongs". Since property is a legal system, it also guarantees certain "rights" to the humans to whom are designated ownership over things. Different forms of property grant different rights (see next paragraph).

Private Property is a type of property that gives far greater individual power over held property than most historical systems of property.
Property privilege generally consist of a number of rights granted to the "owner"; private property has 3:
1) The right to use the thing (usus);
2) The right to partake in the products created by the use of the thing (fructus);
3) The right to freely, and mostly without oversight or accountability, to dispose of the thing (abusus).

So, if I am a blacksmith, I own the anvil. I have the full right to use it without anyone giving me a hard time. The things I produce with it (swords and stuff) automatically become mine in the same way the anvil is. Lastly, when I do not want the anvil anymore, I can dispose of it how I please. I can sell it to someone, I can give it to my son to keep a family hold on the local blacksmithing business, or i can chuck it into the bottom of the ocean so no one else can use it.

The reason private property is distinct from most other historic forms of property is the last point. Most human societies pre-Roman Empire practiced what would be referred to as "usufruct". This is a form of property where an "owner" is given the right to use a thing, and the fruits of the use of the thing are also given to them, but they were not given perpetual ownership of the thing. The "abusus" of the thing, the right to destroy or dispose of the thing, was not granted.
So under usufruct, I am a blacksmith, I own the whole shop, the anvil, etc. For whatever reason, my family and I decide to move to another town several days' travel away. We don't pack up the stuff and take it with us; we don't sell it at a make-up price; it goes into the hands of the next worthy blacksmith. It basically "permenantly" belongs to the township; it temporarily belongs to the town blacksmith. The blacksmith has full rights to use it and enjoy the fruits of his laboring with it, but it's only his as long as he is "the town blacksmith". If he decides not to be that anymore, it's just not longer his. The right to dispose of the thing as he sees fit is not granted by usufruct. This third right was developed by the Romans and was unique at the time.

Private property, as distinct from usufruct, grants the rights to property in exclusivity, and more specifically in perpetuity.



So private property is a form of property, but not all property is private property. Property is a formalization of our understanding of possession, but not all possession is property (you probably possess a lot of things that aren't necessarily your property... do you have a sales receipt for every item in your house.)

One last very salient note: when possession becomes formalized as property, and especially when owners gain greater power through private property, an interesting thing can happen: my "possessions" might not be my "property", and my "property" might not be in my "possession".
For example, the possession of a tool is widely understood (by most human societies throughout history) as belonging to the person actively using the thing. So, I'm the village blacksmith, I possess the anvil because I use it every day. But I work for Anvil Inc, a private corporation that operates local blacksmith shops. The anvil is the private property of the owner of the company, not mine. As a skilled employee of Anvil, Inc. I essentially "lease" the anvil to play my trade. I am granted the right to use the anvil, but the profits go to the company, and they have full right of abuses as well.
Another example is that of a landlord and a renter. If I am renting from a landlord, where I live is "my home" so it is in my possession. But it is not "my house", because it is not my property. These sorts of situations where property and possession are no longer clearly linked leads to widespread feelings of alienation in the working class (other than small business owners) and in the rentier class.

Thanks for that. It is very interesting from the point of view of anthropology, and specifically in respect to what I know of the Banawa cultural attitude toward material goods. Articles like fishing hooks, bow & arrow, blowgun, machetes, knives, axes, shotguns, fall into your last category. But the status of the things which are "produced" by these things is quite a bit more nuanced. That is, if someone kills a large game animal, it isn't fully his to the same extent that the shotgun, bow and arrow, or the blow gun is. A person who uses all of the meat resulting from a major kill for himself is shamed as being stingy. Part of this difference is that something directly made or built by a person is tied to him or her in a sort of spiritual way. When a person dies, everything that he or she made with their hands is left in or at the grave. (In the case of a shotgun, the stock which he had made himself will be removed, and the gun itself kept by a family member. The same for a machete or an ax handle.) Plates and spoons can also acquire a close connection to the person who used them. But a living person can transfer ownership of any of these things to another person, and it does not go back to the maker when he or she dies.

I confess, however, that I did have some feelings of ownership of the area right around the house we built there in the village. I had dug out the stumps there, by hand, w/o any help from any of the people (hired or not). But my closest neighbor (and one of my closest friends there as well) did not have any issues with taking over that area for his own use later on - actually, he built his new house on it, and we could already hear him snoring from the original house he had built, about twice as far away..... That area was in use, too. We had our clothes line set up there, and the 2-way radio antenna was also set up there. So there was no appearance of the area having been 'abandoned'. It all just brought out a cultural clash of our ideas of ownership. I would have never ventured to do the same thing to him. (And, I might add, I had helped carry his main house poles out of the jungle, so in some sense they might be seen as my property, although I never thought of this at all, until now, as a result of reading your post.)

[Praxis+Theodicy]

This discussion reminds me of the Diggers, and Gerrard Winstanley, who wrote treatises for them.
In 1649, during the English Revolution/Civil War, a group of English Peasants decided they were done with the property system that the invading Norman's had put upon them, and wanted to go back to holding land in common, similar to England before the Norman invasion, and, as per their claim, similar to how God wanted the Earth to be, a "common treasury for all" like on the Garden of Eden.

Well before agnostic/atheist philosophers like Marx or Proudhon would present similar ideas, Winstanley came right out and said "property is theft" in 1649, and wrapped his argument in layers of theological and scriptural polemics.

We are made to hold forth this Declaration to you that are the Great Councel, and to you the Great Army of the Land of England, that you may know what we would have, and what you are bound to give us by your Covenants and Promises; and that you may joyn with us in this Work, and so find Peace. Or else, if you do oppose us, we have peace in our Work, and in declaring this Report: And you shall be left without excuse.

The Work we are going about is this, To dig up Georges-Hill and the waste Ground thereabouts, and to Sow Corn, and to eat our bread together by the sweat of our brows.

And the First Reason is this, That we may work in righteousness, and lay the Foundation of making the Earth a Common Treasury for All, both Rich and Poor, That every one that is born in the land, may be fed by the Earth his Mother that brought him forth, according to the Reason that rules in the Creation. Not Inclosing any part into any particular hand, but all as one man, working together, and feeding together as Sons of one Father, members of one Family; not one Lording over another, but all looking upon each other, as equals in the Creation; so that our Maker may be glorified in the work of his own hands, and that every one may see, he is no respecter of Persons, but equally loves his whole Creation, and hates nothing but the Serpent, which is Covetousness, branching forth into selvish Imagination, Pride, Envie, Hypocrisie, Uncleanness; all seeking the ease and honor of flesh, and fighting against the Spirit Reason that made the Creation; for that is the Corruption, the Curse, the Devil, the Father of Lies; Death and Bondage that Serpent and Dragon that the Creation is to be delivered from.

And we have moved hereunto for that Reason, and other which hath been shewed us, both by Vision, Voyce, and Revelation.

For it is shewed us, That so long as we, That so long as we, or any other, doth own the Earth to be the peculier Interest of Lords and Landlords, and not common to others as well as them, we own the Curse, and holds the Creation under bondage; and so long as we or any other doth own Landlords and Tennants, for one to call the Land his, or another to hire it of him, or for one to give hire, and for another to work for hire; this is to dishonour the work of Creation; as if the righteous Creator should have respect to persons, and therefore made the Earth for some, and not for all: And so long as we, or any other maintain this Civil Propriety, we consent still to hold the Creation down under that bondage it groans under, and so we should hinder the work of Restoration, and sin against Light that is given into us, and so through fear of the flesh man, lose our peace.

And that this Civil Propriety is the Curse, is manifest thus, Those that Buy and Sell Land, and are landlords, have got it either by Oppression, or Murther, or Theft; and all landlords lives in the breach of the Seventh and Eighth Commandements, Thous shalt not steal, nor kill.

First by their Oppression. They have by their subtle imaginary and covetous wit, got the plain-hearted poor, or yonger Brethren to work for them, for small wages, and by their work have got a great increase; for the poor by their labour lifts up Tyrants to rule over them; or else by their covetous wit, they have out-reached the plain-hearted in Buying and Selling, and thereby inriched themselves, but impoverished others: or else by their subtile wit, having been a lifter up into places of Trust, have inforced people to pay Money for a Publick use, but have divided much of it into their private purses; and so have got it by Oppression.

Then Secondly for Murther; They have by subtile wit and power, pretended to preserve a people in safety by the power of the Sword; and what by large Pay, much Free-quarter, and other Booties, which they call their own, they get much Monies, and with this they buy Land, and become landlords; and if once Landlords, then they rise to be Justices, Rulers, and State Governours, as experience shewes: But all this is but a bloudy and subtile Theevery, countenanced by a Law that Covetousness made; and is a breach of the Seventh Commandement, Thou shalt not kill.

And likewise Thirdly a breach of the Eighth Commandement, Thou shalt not steal; but these landlords have thus stoln the Earth from their fellow Creatures, that have an equal share with them, by the Law of Reason and Creation, as well as they.