Forty years ago was the middle of the Six Day War, and there is much talk of the legacy this week. Honestly, I know nothing (relative to others); I was neither alive nor have extensively studied Middle East, so far be it from me to say anything on politics or history. At the essence, however, the issue seems to revolve around a question of ownership rights to portions of land. This, I think, I am qualified to make some very general statements about.
This past fall semester I researched and wrote a paper reviewing the literature on Land Value Taxation. The concept was popularized by Henry George, who questioned the morality of (land) property ownership. Much better, George claimed, it would be if the government taxed not the sweat of one's brow (wages), for which ownership is clearly defined and so taxation is truly confiscatory, but instead taxed a commodity that individual people don't really have a right to own, anyway (land).
When I actually thought about it, what is the rational for ownership of land? One what basis should an individual be able to draw a circle around himself in the sand and then exclude others? Now, what basis does a group of people (a country) have to draw that same circle in the sand? When you stop and think about it, there really isn't a good reason. At least, I haven't heard one yet.
Of course, I know that the implications of following this line of thought imply uprooting the basis of society as we know it. I'm not that much of a radical (I'm actually a nerd - I admit it). It's funny, I imagine a conservative pundits bashing my revolutionary student "crazy talk". We'd both be biased, I suppose...they would own land and I don't.
Although an anarchist I am not, the unresolved thought that social structure basics are founded on unjust principles remains troubling. Perhaps southern slave-holders had similar worries late at night concerning the justice of ownership rights of 'certain portions' of their property. John Locke did devise a rationale for land ownership, that farmers tilling a field mingle their labor into the soil and thus derive ownership rights to the land, as labor ownership is clear. This theory was written in the 1600s, however, when "uninhabited" land seemed infinitely available, and makes no sense whatsoever in the present day. Now, I would guess all the land on Earth is already claimed; and why do past generations who did the "claiming" have precedence over future generations? For this reason a "first-come-first-serve" principal of ownership rights is unsatisfactory to me.
I still like to refer to my "circle in the sand" logic occasionally, because there are some policy implications, both for immigration and the moral right any country has to prevent others from moving there, as well as the Israeli-Palestinian situation in the Middle East (well, more broadly all countries who think that they should own a particular parcel of land). Which people should own Israel/Palestine/the Holy Land? My opinion is that no one should. There a proposal on the table to make Jerusalem an international city, that people of all countries should own it. Why only stop at the city limits? The broader region should be an international region, also belonging to all the people of the world, and when you really think about it, the "internationally"-owned borders should then just be expanded to include the whole world. Really, the Earth belongs to all its people.
And then of course, you would phrase this properly: the Earth belongs to no one.
No comments:
Post a Comment