Do We Own?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you missed the point. Let me clarify it by another example. I buy a portion of mining land and develop only one section of it - leaving the rest completely unused and undisturbed - with the sole intention of using it in the future when the current mine runs dry. What would be the position of priority use in that case?

I didn't miss any point it's a non issue. If we're going with priority use over ownership just how did you "buy" anything to begin with? If we apply the workings of an ownership model to the backdrop of a priority use model it shouldn't be surprising to see that the two don't match.

Not much objection here. But how would you create a culture of preference for communal ownership?

Same way we already do. By stressing the benefits to ones own personal interests. Use of equipment that you could not afford outright - or that you only use every so often and is thus not economically feasible. Similar situation with property rights (which we already do, sometimes one entity owns the mineral rights another the water rights - they're communally sharing the land at an effectively lower cost due to distributing their various claims to specific property rights).

The problem with communal ownership usually is that the responsibility of proper usage falls to everyone - which means, it effectively falls to no one. Which is not to say that it couldn't work, but that it would often fail unless a majority within the community chooses to be responsible.

People are always the problem, lol, thankfully, they're also the solution, eh?

[genkaus]

I didn't miss any point it's a non issue. If we're going with priority use over ownership just how did you "buy" anything to begin with? If we apply the workings of an ownership model to the backdrop of a priority use model it shouldn't be surprising to see that the two don't match.

Well, if the priority use model is to be applied some time in the future, a change would have to be made - where an issue like this would come up. Nevertheless, the key question here is, within the context of priority use, how would a priority user defer usage of the object while reasonably ensuring he will get the value in future?

Same way we already do. By stressing the benefits to ones own personal interests. Use of equipment that you could not afford outright - or that you only use every so often and is thus not economically feasible. Similar situation with property rights (which we already do, sometimes one entity owns the mineral rights another the water rights - they're communally sharing the land at an effectively lower cost due to distributing their various claims to specific property rights).

Oh, that kind of preference. Then the opposite could be true just as easily. In the cases where private ownership is more beneficial than community ownership, you would be stressing the preference former over the latter.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, if the priority use model is to be applied some time in the future, a change would have to be made - where an issue like this would come up. Nevertheless, the key question here is, within the context of priority use, how would a priority user defer usage of the object while reasonably ensuring he will get the value in future?

They're kind of cross odds purposes, priority and deferment. Why would we be assuring any value on behalf of anyone at any time with regards to property? We don't do that now either. I could see where we might find this to be troubling when the property is money - np, we use a different laws for money than we use for say, real estate -just like we do now.

Deferred use (not assured value) is all that would need to be included. Which it could be, even though it's not quite "the right fit". Deferring the use of a field (while enhancing it's value) is not actually deferring use. It's in use. I think that alot of the things we conceptualize as deferment don't really fit the bill in that context. Being generous, we'd only call something "deferment" if you actually planned to do "nothing" with the land you hadn't bought - but felt you had a compelling claim just the same.

Oh, that kind of preference. Then the opposite could be true just as easily. In the cases where private ownership is more beneficial than community ownership, you would be stressing the preference former over the latter.

Absolutely, which is why I like our current system that allows for private owners or communal/co-op contracts - as well as trusts -which could easily be set up to be "no ownership" in effect if not in law, better than some single line approach like "no ownership" or "only communal/coop" "only public".

[genkaus]

They're kind of cross odds purposes, priority and deferment. Why would we be assuring any value on behalf of anyone at any time with regards to property? We don't do that now either. I could see where we might find this to be troubling when the property is money - np, we use a different laws for money than we use for say, real estate -just like we do now.

Not really. Right now, a person can leave a piece of real estate undeveloped for years.

Deferred use (not assured value) is all that would need to be included. Which it could be, even though it's not quite "the right fit". Deferring the use of a field (while enhancing it's value) is not actually deferring use. It's in use. I think that alot of the things we conceptualize as deferment don't really fit the bill in that context. Being generous, we'd only call something "deferment" if you actually planned to do "nothing" with the land you hadn't bought - but felt you had a compelling claim just the same.

The concept of deferred use is an aspect of investment. I may reasonably expect the value of the land to go up in future if it is left unused, while it may not go up as much if it is used. And right now, the choice to use is up to me. That is an advantage that property rights model would have over priority use.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not really. Right now, a person can leave a piece of real estate undeveloped for years.

Sure, but how that would be able to modify my statement - that priority use and deferment are at cross odds...is a bit of a mystery.

The concept of deferred use is an aspect of investment. I may reasonably expect the value of the land to go up in future if it is left unused, while it may not go up as much if it is used.

It's not a concept solely limited to investment, but sure, right now deferred use is an aspect of investment. I'm not sure I understand....you seem to be asking me how we might insure some value to an investment (which we don't do now anyway) from a model that makes the concept of investment - along with the concept of ownership - null. I'm not sure how I would answer a question like that. The question seems to be "What if I want to buy a piece of land, sit on it, and have a reasonable expectation of a return on my investment?" (correct me if I've misunderstood?) to which the answer has always been "You can't buy anything in the first place". Anything that follows "what if I buy" in a model that is put forward as an alternative to ownership is essentially a question for some other system. Doubly so in the case of "sit on it", and triply so in the case of "reasonable expectations of a return on my investment".

And right now, the choice to use is up to me. That is an advantage that property rights model would have over priority use.

Agreed.

[genkaus]

Sure, but how that would be able to modify my statement - that priority use and deferment are at cross odds...is a bit of a mystery.

My point was regarding your statement that we don't assure value on behalf of anyone at any time. I'm saying that since we allow a person to leave his property (real estate in this case), we do assure value at a future date.

It's not a concept solely limited to investment, but sure, right now deferred use is an aspect of investment. I'm not sure I understand....you seem to be asking me how we might insure some value to an investment (which we don't do now anyway) from a model that makes the concept of investment - along with the concept of ownership - null. I'm not sure how I would answer a question like that. The question seems to be "What if I want to buy a piece of land, sit on it, and have a reasonable expectation of a return on my investment?" (correct me if I've misunderstood?) to which the answer has always been "You can't buy anything in the first place". Anything that follows "what if I buy" in a model that is put forward as an alternative to ownership is essentially a question for some other system. Doubly so in the case of "sit on it", and triply so in the case of "reasonable expectations of a return on my investment".

As you correctly point out, the question you've posed is valid only within the context of ownership. Within the priority use model, the question would be "How do I exercise my priority rights upon the piece of land in such a way that I extract the corresponding value 20 years from now?"

[Violet]

I own ALL the nubs.

Whatchu got, scrub? 1v1 me, brah!

[The Grand Nudger]

My point was regarding your statement that we don't assure value on behalf of anyone at any time. I'm saying that since we allow a person to leave his property (real estate in this case), we do assure value at a future date.

We assure continuity of ownership, not the value of whatever is owned. At a future date, the property may be worth less than what said person paid for it.

"How do I exercise my priority rights upon the piece of land in such a way that I extract the corresponding value 20 years from now?"

What corresponding value?

[genkaus]

We assure continuity of ownership, not the value of whatever is owned. At a future date, the property may be worth less than what said person paid for it.

What corresponding value?

By "value" here I'm not referring specifically to its monetary worth but to how much use I can get out of it. For example, as soon as I buy a car, its monetary worth (resale value) is halved due to it having the label of "second-hand" attached to it. But its value may be in form of how long and how frequently I can use it.

Suppose, I buy a parcel of land and, having examined it, I know that it is sufficiently rich to support a certain minimum output per year for 10 years. And under the ownership model, I have the choice to start farming 20 years from now and be reasonably sure that I would get a minimum amount of output per year for 10 years, i.e., a certain amount of value from it. My reasons for deferment could be anything. Maybe I expect prices of crops to go up. Maybe I otherwise occupied right now or the land represents my retirement fund. Nevertheless, the choice of deferment is available to me because the value is assured.

Under the priority use model, suppose I pay for priority use of the land for 10 years while expecting a certain minimum output. And that is the output I would get if I use it now. But I defer it for 20 years, others with secondary use rights will use it, which will result in my bottom line dropping after 20 years. The choice of deferment here carries with it a certainty of loss of value. My question is, how would this certainty of loss be addressed or offset within this model?

On a side note - as it happens - we can even assure the monetary value of what is owned for a future date. The futures contracts and forward trades are made specifically for this purpose.

[The Grand Nudger]

Under the priority use model, suppose I pay for priority use of the land for 10 years while expecting a certain minimum output. And that is the output I would get if I use it now. But I defer it for 20 years, others with secondary use rights will use it, which will result in my bottom line dropping after 20 years. The choice of deferment here carries with it a certainty of loss of value. My question is, how would this certainty of loss be addressed or offset within this model?

It would be addressed by not being part of this system, in my particular brand. Others may wish to include it.

On a side note - as it happens - we can even assure the monetary value of what is owned for a future date. The futures contracts and forward trades are made specifically for this purpose.

A futures contract is a business agreement agreed upon by both parties. Under our system (and under the priority use system) this would be possible, but in neither system is the assurance of said value built into the system itself.