In much of this world "commoners" don't have access to titles. When I read about the History of the US and the history of Argentina, the difference, is that no matter how much Argentina politicians promised land reform and land to, say the Gauchos, Blacks, and indiginous people of Argentina; at the end of the day those people were effectively dispossessed from the opportunity to get ahead. In the US, to the contrary, common land was made available to commoners. Sure we had land speculators, but those speculators, mostly, were involved in selling land to ordinary people.
The opportunity to own private property, for common people, is our common heritage and is what distinguishes our country from countries that are conflictive and economic failures.
That being said, understanding the commons is important for preserving that heritage, because the fact is that the enemy of private property for commoners is not idealistic "collectivism" (though that is an enemy too -- especially in other countries where the importance of private property is denied and misunderstood) -- but the idea that the "commons" should not belong to, be controlled by, and be regulated for and on behalf of us commoners. In my last post I talked about the commons and its definition. (001411.html)
If you listen to the average right wing ideologue, the idea of "commons" is somehow conflated with the idea of "collective." But this is a false idea. The commons is any set of resources whose shared ownership is necessary to the survival, liberty, and "pursuit of happiness" of commoners. That is why the development of monopoly, monopolistic organizations, and oligopoly is destructive.
If you look at the words "power," "ownership", "rule" and "control" they are almost synonymous. If the liberty of the individual is his own "self-rule" or "self-ownership." The liberty of people in groups is the "shared rule" and the "agreed sharing of common goods" involves agreeable power sharing. We own our individual dollars, but the vehicles, belong to the Feds. When we pay a person for something we want, we exchange ownership. We do this with the property of equality -- we are equally satisfied by the transaction or we won't go about it.
A rape, a murder, a theft is an exchange of property also, but the exchange is anything but agreeabe, and that is what defines whether it is lawful or not. When dealing with groups, when a group takes property from another group and there is no agreement, the transaction may be lawful but it is not agreeable, and if it genuinely infringes on the rights and liberty of the person who's property is taken -- then that is tyranny. So tyranny is the infringement on individual liberty by the group.
The commons exist because some properties cannot be fairly adjudicated, divided up, without preserving access by "common folks" on a basis of relative agreeability -- equal satisfaction with access. Stores are commons where folks are granted permission to enter on condition that they behave themselves and maybe buy something. Computers and the internet are a commons where each individual participant agrees to abide by certain rules in return for access. Our country may be divided into private property, but the source of the titles is "We the people." The country as a whole is a commons, and as a result it grants each citizen the right to travel, to use highways and rivers, and to certain common rights, that cannot be infringed.
Other countries don't have this premise. The land belongs to a King, or to powerful individuals, and there is no point in arguing with them.
Chris
Posted by cholte at April 1, 2007 06:19 PMChris,
The idea of land ownership being actual "ownership" is an illusion bankers created a long time ago, and re-create all the time.
Until the land and the improvements are paid in full, the land and it's improvements are not actually "yours", they belong to the Bank and the Bank's Investor's to dispose of as they see fit on a quarterly calendar basis.
Until such point as the total debt service of property and improvements are fully satisified to the Bank and it's Investor's, the "property" is the "property" of the Bank, and you are allowed to occupy the premises unless you vacate your option to occupy the premises in good standing.
The concept of a collective and individual ownership by common people is mostly an illusion by the rich perpetrated on the poor, in order to remove their money from the poor person's pockets volunarily; the diference between a crime being commited and ignorance being commited.
The debacle of the subprime lending market recently collapsiing and poor people losing their homes through foreclosure activies; so rich people can purchase the homes at bargain prices; and re-gentrify old neighborhoods into their "new city dwellings."
Who saw that one coming with a bad economy and housing values declining nationally recently with five years of rising housing values prior.
America is less of a democracy these days, and more of an Oligarchy these days.
Hail King George!
Pat
Posted by: Patrick at April 4, 2007 08:29 PMPat you have a point. We are headed towards aristocracy and well on our way to brazen oligarchy. However, the idea of commoners owning their property is not an invention of bankers, but a genuinely transformative notion. It is a "win/win" conception versus the tendancy of wannabe aristocrats to either destroy the commons, create an "anti-commons", or steal the property of people. Stealing property is also a way of stealing liberty and oppressing people Patrick.
In many countries a few rich people own everything. The theft from people's pockets is open, continuing, and incredibly corrupt and corrupting. People have trouble getting even the most basic of a clear title to their property. No property is an important right that commoners need to seek, because in order to secure one's personal liberty one needs to at least own something. Ownership is control.
Where the bankers get us is in creating systems where groups and individuals own people, and treat people as economic cattle (not chatel, cattle). Patrick, last week I saw some bills of sale of slaves, and those had "mortgages" attached. Banks make money off of any sort of selling and buying of people and their property. The image of Robert De Niro as a Hellish banker/lawyer rings far truer than any other image I can think of.
The assertion of the commons is the assertion that even powerless people have the right to access common property and to their fair share of the "pie". That is why I'm talking about the subject.
Chris
Posted by: Chris at April 24, 2007 10:52 PM