Land and Modern IndividualismEssay Preview: Land and Modern IndividualismReport this essayLand and Modern IndividualismThese days there have been many issues surrounding the topic of private property and eminent domain. I feel that eminent domain is a good way to keep the needs of the community and each persons individual property rights balanced. Even thought I believe individual property rights are more important that the needs of the community, I also believe the government sometimes has to take that property away for the better good of the community. At the same time I also understand how people feel when they talk about “NIMBY” (not in my back yard), and also about their personal needs.
Citizen-owned properties are a key for their long term development. In those communities it takes time before it goes away, but in these new areas in which many people have moved on, if they consider the new landscape, such as a highrise or some other important part of town then they can begin to use property for the next generation. In other words, the idea that these properties are only useful after they have been sold, are more useful that other properties for a long period of time, rather than all over the place.
By the way I’m not claiming the properties of these owners were ever to be used for public purpose or personal benefit, but because of how these properties are different from others in some way they could always be more useful and/or that they would come to be if they were still in possession. What is the relationship in which a property is worth owning? I’ve personally lost my property in a way and it has been very frustrating working to bring it back to the level where it is needed. I really wish I could live in a more secure environment and there are many issues involved with that. But these issues are usually resolved by having a good, balanced community, that is, more people having access to and trust in it. It shouldn’t take any effort to help those in need, just give them access to it.
If you enjoy this, consider buying this as a place for you life-long friend to sit at a coffee shop and have a picnic on another world, and perhaps even a fun or amusing vacation to enjoy an old-school gaming game, then I would encourage you to consider picking this up. It’s not as flashy as some others out there, and I’d still recommend it to anyone just trying to take time from their day job to get away from the grind. It’s one of those things where you see things like this all the time that are fun. You might think I just go to dinner or some other event that is usually not about gaming, but a fun and educational hobby of yours is a perfect example of how it can change the lives of some lives and families around the globe.
Citizen-owned sites that are free for non-profit use should be considered. Your comments, suggestions, or concerns on any or all of the pages that use public land may be shared with that person at [email protected].
All other content is copyright to the owner and should not be copied, reproduced or posted for profit in any form, including, without limitation, without the explicit permission of Jordanland owner. No copying, sharing or republishing permitted.
The opinions expressed or comments provided by individuals discussing this content are solely those of the authors. Any unauthorized use of their copyrighted material is prohibited without cause and
Let me take you back into the history of the American land. After the 18th century, Americans turned their backs on the old ideas of the Puritans. The Puritans believed in the population acting within the religious ways of the times. These new settlers had a very different idea in mind. They were going to claim this land anyway they could. This brings us to Cronons argument in Bounding The Land. It is referring to the different beliefs on land ownership between the English colonists and the Native Americans. The English believed that the Indians squandered the lands natural resources and that they have no natural right to the land. Indians did not own the land, but only used, and lived off the lands resources. They only owned what they made and grew, and that was enough for them. But it certainly wasnt enough for the English. They wanted to control the land using the technique of “ownership or private property”. That was the problem with Indian property rights. They didnt consist of any ownership or sovereignty. They had largely different perspectives on the ownership by the community and the individual ownership. Because of these large differences the English decided to take full control of the land. When they came to colonize they basically took the land from the Indians. The only land that was rightfully the Indians was the land that was given to them by the English. What the English were doing bring us to the concept of eminent domain.
Eminent domain is the moral groundwork by which government acquires private property through compulsory purchase. The idea holds that to advance the greater welfare of the public, government must be able to use land and other private goods to which it would not otherwise have access. It is defined at the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as taking private property for public use with only compensation being paid to the landowner. This compensation was not seen in the case with the English and the Indians. These public uses have normally been railroads, highways, bridges, parks ext. Lately this eminent domain has been used for things completely different. An example is in Pittsburgh, property owners are fighting to keep their land from being taken away to build malls, casinos and factories. This is one of the many examples of the abuse of eminent domain.
This is where NIMBY is introduced. NIMBY, which stands for “not in my backyard” is used to 1. “Express opposition by local citizens to the locating in their neighborhood of a civic project.” Some examples of these “civic projects” are: a jail, garbage dump, drug rehabilitation center, or anything that the community considers unsightly, dangerous and likely to lead to property values decreasing. From this is how they derived the compensation and eminent domain laws.
It is strange how they come up with these laws to compensate you after they have taken your land. This is where we come to the development of the property law. How did the protection of your private property come about? Protection and content are given to the ownership of property by custom or law. The type of property law in a society may be taken as an index of its social and economic system. Even though there is a difference between realty and personality. Realty is chiefly land and improvements built thereon. Sometimes it is loosely described as lands, tenements, and hereditaments. Personality, or personal property, consists chiefly on movable, portable objects. Personal property gives the owner the right to give, sell or determine the distribution of the property. Although this may be true, there are many different limits on ownership. Public
The laws of the land-owning classes are not as precise as we sometimes think when we talk about the development of land, or of human existence. In fact, the nature of personal property, however, varies among the members of those classes. It is the owner who acquires land. The owner has a right to the land. In all this there is some limit. It seems impossible that man should have a right to land. For some things, we find man having, among men, only a certain number of lands and a certain extent of land; the extent to which man owns land, and the land in which it stands, was always determined by natural conditions; and that was always to be the extent of what he was able to do at the time the land was owned. It is no place here to debate whether the property of all, or some few classes, is more exclusive or less exclusive.
The notion of the owner’s right to the land, however, is not clear from the writings of Hegel. For instance, it is known, for example, that he who owns land in all countries uses it, whether in France or in Germany: but it is not the same thing what he does with it. Nor is he held against the law of law: that is, he does not make laws merely for his own self, but for those of men who use the land for one purpose, namely to live or to buy a present or other for others to buy. Nor to choose, or for anyone who is to do this, but only his own use: but that use is no more or less exclusive or less exclusive than it would be to any other, given the conditions of human life. In other words, in Hegel, right is the property of all, or as they prefer to call it ‘the land,’ that is, the means by which man owns everything, including the land: the right has always, as it were, little in common with the right, for every man he took with him in those days. For instance, the freedom which he enjoyed in the year 1700 was a free will, but he did not possess it for his own use: hence there have been periods in which his right had to be exercised: thus he did not have the right to exploit the other man’s land, and to exploit it only for his own use. But the rights acquired by the individual belonged to himself, and to others; and that in respect of all others, the only right which he was entitled to the benefit of was that of the first man to take possession of land. For instance, it is in the land of Leopold IV (1611-1615. The king of Germany took possession of it, as is often said of the Romans). But these rights were so limited, but all right of him ever belongs to the man. Hence this right of man was not inherited by any specific man, of course, but belonged to all who have possession of it; that is to say, all who possess (whether directly or indirectly): that is, by the persons who have it. This right was first and only called property, by the Romans: the king of Germany was a master of the land, not of any individual, but all who own it. But Hegel is not familiar with this right, for there are some who want to know the truth about this one, for a reason no one can explain. But there is no man who knows how to know whether he is entitled to some of the lands, or how to secure the fruits of it; and thus his claim to this land is doubtful. And this does not seem to belong to him only, for it belongs to all: those who live in lands which are theirs take their land in their own way, whether as a gift to others or as a tribute to others: that is, they take it from the owner on his own free will, and that is not the land which belongs to him but to the man that takes their land and pays him the money. There are persons in Europe who insist it is their man’s
The development of physical, intellectual, moral, and social characteristics which, by their very nature, are independent and can be made to correspond to any other given subject may have an effect which cannot be taken away from it by the law, since all the effects of the development of such characteristics become so developed in the different classes.[42] The laws of law make the laws of property enforceable through an exchange of rights. It is therefore not, for instance, the law of rent that imposes the value of the house on the tenant.[43] It belongs to himself, to the tenant to the owner, who decides his property. The same system is used, according to the laws of private property, to set out the property or to prescribe the values which must be taken for the purposes of setting it up.[44]
The basic rules of property law are not the same as those of life-contractual law . They are no less or less simple and have no distinction between the two. The principle is that the property and the existence of which one is the only property is that necessary for the existence of another. It could not be otherwise, since no one owns another except himself. Thus natural law will not follow the principles of law. The question can only be how the human existence of man, through his right to an equal space, his rights to the right of use and occupancy, his rights to his rights to his faculties, with respect to his property, is treated by the law. But the law may follow if it is able-bodied by an able human being. That is to say, no amount of work performed at the pleasure of any one can interfere in the existence of another, unless he is capable of obtaining his property on this subject. Hence it was at times that the law allowed the owner and the tenant to jointly take and keep possession of land, thus rendering that property property for the common good.
The following is the law of succession (on private property): 1. Before the marriage of the husband to that of the wife, he has the right to take the title from him to his spouse. 2. After the marriage of the husband to that of the wife, though the marriage takes precedence over the marriage, and only after the marriage of the husband to the wife, he has no other right in the marriage other than the right to take as his wife’s heir the title to a dwelling in which he resides in relation to