This may be why some people feel existential threat connected to their property rights. They’re forced via a need for food, health, and shelter to be in thrall to someone else 50-100% of their waking life, so they’d like to go home to a place where they’re 100% empowered. And they resent any government or leftist who wants to regulate that.

Would they feel such a sense of defensiveness over reasonable zoning, building permits, and EPA regulations if they were truly free to choose their use of that other 50-100% of their day?

Is this one of those cases where the true oppressor (the boss/billionaire class) are getting folks fired up about the lesser oppression?

And then we can think of “rights” as “this is a way that you’re not allowed to exercise power over me. I am guaranteed empowerment over these areas.” This is true of inalienable rights such as free speech, but also of property rights, like water or mineral rights, rights of way, etc.

Which opens the can of worms, can something like healthcare or food be a “right”?

Libertarians say no, and it would seem from my definition above that no, those can’t be rights.

But life is considered a right (inalienable). And you can’t have life without food or health (or shelter). The fundamental need for food, health, and shelter are leveraged against people to compel them to make choices they otherwise wouldn’t, for instance, where to work. Can a person be said to be free if one is compelled to spend 50-100% of their waking life doing something they hate to produce wealth for someone they don’t like?

Or maybe it is?

I still kind of like my idea that no one can own land and that we lease it from the government/public/landback but that we get some kind of rights to the improvements and the wealth/power/freedom those improvements make.

But also that the use of the land be balanced with ecological and community needs. The power dynamics here are necessary to understand to create some kind of equitable and balanced system. If the public owned all land, that's going to scare anyone who deep down just wants a place where they make the rules and decisions. That's a reasonable ask, so long as they're not impeding on other people's empowerment and rights, which includes care of the global ecosystems.

/

We all understand these fundamentals on a subconscious level. This is why conservatives and libertarians are so salty about their property rights. They resent it when the government tells them what they can build or what they dump in their rivers or if they're allowed to shoot trespassers. They're terrified of someone they don't trust having control over them. They know deep down that property is about power, but I think most have not consciously examined this.

When I worked in IT, I learned that often what the customer asked me for was not what they *really* wanted or needed, so part of my job was to look past the surface and get to the root of that.

This is the root of their obsession with property rights. A place where they can be in charge. And I think that's something most of us want. But maybe "owning property" isn't the best way to get that.

It's nice to romanticize like Gutherie did, that it's all our land and who are you to put up a sign? And indigenous ideas of stewardship and being part of the land rather than "owning" it are compelling and worth exploring, truly a beneficial way to see the world. I've been leaning that way.

But also... there is value in the function of, "This here spot, this is my sovereign place, where I am in charge within certain limits and responsibilities to my community." In that, I think everyone maybe should have some such spot where they live. That's ultimate liberation. A place where I don't have to compromise with anyone else outside of harm prevention and reduction to those who visit and to my neighbors.

I'm not sure all of these values can be reconciled. But this is what I've been thinking about lately.

This may be the root of libertarians centering many philosophies around property and contracts. These are both implements of power and empowerment.

And there's something to that.

But does it have to be "property" as we think of it and "owning" as we think of it?

The core benefit of "owning" "property" is to have a space you have choices over and within.

I do still like my idea of making land non-ownable but instead leasable (as a form of taxation and public control over aspects of the land that are in public interests), but giving some kind of rights to an individual over the improvements on the land, and the wealth and power/empowerment that generates.

But as always, how then do we maintain power balance outside our current construct of "property"?

My frustrations with renting were about how I couldn't paint the walls the color I wanted, or add rooms, or change the landscape. Someone would sit in judgement, tell me if I could or couldn't. I didn't have control over much of my home, other than who was allowed in & what kind of decor to put up. The landlord always had power to kick me out. Terrifying!

People want to OWN property for a small piece of power. So that there's one place they can call the shots. These words like "own" again hint at wealth, which is part of it, but not the main part, because this wealth is merely an extension of the power you have over deciding who else gets to "own" it (gets power over) if you sell it (in trade for fungible units of power called "dollars"), so that then THEY can call the shots over that piece of land.

Oscar Wilde had it right. Everything comes down to power. Those who hoard power don't want you thinking like that.

Property ownership simply means a section of land that you have power over. When I "own" this half-acre, I will have nearly full say over how it is used, balanced with my co-owner, and municipal, county, state, & federal laws.

As they say, a man's home is his castle, & at one point in Western society, this was a revolutionary concept. That a man have say over everything that happens in his home. Not the Duke or King or police. (Much we've already unpacked there about sexism, etc.)

So getting down to fundamentals:

Is there a need in our society where each person has an area that is nearly 100% their own? Not as *wealth* (geez wealth is such a distracting concept), but as a function of empowerment. When I'm here, there is little power anyone else can have over me. When you step on this soil, I have say over your actions. You are only here by my will, I can make you leave, and you can't make me do anything.

As a libertarian I thought property was everything. Then I learned about other ways of thinking.

People say "Property is theft," Woodie Gutherie sang:

"As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said "No trespassin'"
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!"

And then there's my idea of abolishing land as property. So what would that really mean?

Again, think about power. Everything that is human comes down to power.

Quick definitions:

Power is the ability to make decisions and take action, even over other people's choices and acts.

Empowerment is the ability to act and decide for once's self.