Do We Own?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think priority use is the answer - especially where deferred usage is concerned.

To be very clear, neither do I...but it does handle those messy situations.

Suppose I buy a piece of fallow agricultural land and choose to develop it. However, since it is not very fertile right now and I happen to have other sources of income, I choose not to cultivate it but simply spend years enriching it. I'm investing my time and effort for the future when I'm old. However, within priority use, I either use the land now or let someone else use it - thereby devaluing my investment.

If you're working the tilth and fertility it's not actually "out of use" - it's just not producing crops. I'd say you have priority use and you're using it. Granted, it's not as cut and dry as our current system of ownership and that;s why I prefer something more like what we have - but the framework for solving such a dispute is there.

I do recognize communal ownership to be a valid solution in many cases - especially where things built and maintained by the government are concerned. For example, I'd assume that all natural resources (except for human resources) in a country belong to the government and thus are public property unless a private entity buys it from them. However, I wouldn't consider the products of an individual's labor to automatically be communal property without him being paid for it.

Communal ownership is also a great stopgap between private and redundant ownership of the means of production (say, combines for every farmer) and the private sector offering a service that amounts to the same practical effect (custom combine). Keeping private rights of ownership as a strong foundation, we still have the option of communal ownership through contracts (and stressing a culture of preferring communal ownership contracts on top of private ownership wherever applicable seems to be wise). I like having both options, personally, which is why I like the system that allows for both.