It seems to me that Gesell figured out how to make the economy work for everyone, including our Earth mother. Everyone needs to look into this to see if they agree. I've been telling Greens, as co-chair of the Banking and Monetary Reform Committee, the Wörgl model would be a great way to establish thriving local and regional economies. The opposition must be acknowledged of course, and hopefully would not shut it down before being surrounded by happy sufficiently prosperous people, perhaps making them reconsider using their power to take that away. Happy is better than angry even if happy makes you angry.
would you expand more on the private ownership of land question? I got the money as means of exchange vs store of value part but the land part, I think, you wrote less about it.
In Gesellian economy, one cannot own land?
Like, I have a house and a piece of land around it where I grow things. Am I not the owner of the land?
You would lease land from the government. So you would have enforceable rights to the exclusive use of the land you rent, which would allow you to securely live, grow crops, conduct business, etc., but you would not be able to sell the land for a profit.
Now I own a house which is my own on my own land. Even if lose everything, this is still mine. If even my house burns down, I still have this piece of land. And never need to pay a cent for it.
This lease/rent seems to be a burden.
It's like renting an apartment instead of owning it – much more insecure.
Yes, I would say that you are still thinking in old terms. But I salute you for your effort to consider a new way of seeing things.
The Gesellian perspective on land is very complex and very delicate. People (understandably) have very strong reactions to the idea of eliminating private land ownership. For this reason, many Gesellians entirely avoid this side of the subject and focus exclusively on the monetary side. In my view, the two sides cannot be separated, so the land issue deserves as much thought as the money side. That being said, clearly I have spent MUCH more time on the money side when it comes to my Substack articles. (I really need to change that and devote more time to discussing the land side.)
I will not be able to communicate the entire subject or convince you of it all at once, but I welcome an ongoing dialogue. Toward that end, I would ask you to consider the concept of private property generally (not just as it pertains to land). I think you would agree that private property is a uniquely human construct. Animals do not understand or respect property rights. They are not something that exist in nature. Man chooses to invent to concept of property rights. So, what is the fundamental basis of property rights? How does one establish a legitimate claim to property?
I would argue that human labor is the fundamental basis of property rights -- i.e. if you make it, you own it. So if you build a house, for example, that house is legitimately your property. But you did not make the land that house sits on. No one did. It existed prior to man. Therefore it cannot become private property on the basis of human labor. (How to practically separate ownership of land from ownership of improvements to land (i.e. houses, factories, crops, etc.) is another very important part of the subject that I will defer getting into for the time-being, because it is a complex topic that deserves a separate discussion.)
So when it comes to land, you have to either advance a different foundational principle than human labor upon which to base property rights, or you must recognize that land cannot be legitimately, privately owned. If the basis of private property is human labor, the only way land can become private property is by illegitimate use of force -- i.e. violence and/or theft. And it doesn't matter if a piece of land has changed hands a hundred times since the original illegitimate act of violence/theft. If legitimate ownership cannot be established in the first place, obviously it cannot be legitimately transferred to someone else.
Obviously there's much more to say on the subject, but that's a good place to start. I am also going to share something I wrote on my personal facebook page but haven't yet posted on Substack. It's basically just a collection of excerpts from Gesell's book on the subject of land. It's powerful stuff (in my opinion) and may help you start to break free of the old way of thinking about land. I will try to post it later today.
As to the property in animal kingdom, will not a pack of wolves defend their territory from another pack or whomever? So they can be said to have occupied that piece of land and made it their property, can't they?
---
Do these ideas have any connection whatsoever to Klaus Schwab's "you will own nothing and be happy"?
What you describe is not property rights. It is possession, not ownership. Possession exists in nature. Ownership does not. That is a crucial distinction. Gesell supports possession but not ownership.
Property rights would mean that if the pack of wolves goes on family vacation they would have an enforceable claim to the piece of land when they get back.
It seems to me that Gesell figured out how to make the economy work for everyone, including our Earth mother. Everyone needs to look into this to see if they agree. I've been telling Greens, as co-chair of the Banking and Monetary Reform Committee, the Wörgl model would be a great way to establish thriving local and regional economies. The opposition must be acknowledged of course, and hopefully would not shut it down before being surrounded by happy sufficiently prosperous people, perhaps making them reconsider using their power to take that away. Happy is better than angry even if happy makes you angry.
Hello,
would you expand more on the private ownership of land question? I got the money as means of exchange vs store of value part but the land part, I think, you wrote less about it.
In Gesellian economy, one cannot own land?
Like, I have a house and a piece of land around it where I grow things. Am I not the owner of the land?
You would lease land from the government. So you would have enforceable rights to the exclusive use of the land you rent, which would allow you to securely live, grow crops, conduct business, etc., but you would not be able to sell the land for a profit.
Let me think this through.
Now I own a house which is my own on my own land. Even if lose everything, this is still mine. If even my house burns down, I still have this piece of land. And never need to pay a cent for it.
This lease/rent seems to be a burden.
It's like renting an apartment instead of owning it – much more insecure.
Maybe I am just still thinking in "old terms"
Yes, I would say that you are still thinking in old terms. But I salute you for your effort to consider a new way of seeing things.
The Gesellian perspective on land is very complex and very delicate. People (understandably) have very strong reactions to the idea of eliminating private land ownership. For this reason, many Gesellians entirely avoid this side of the subject and focus exclusively on the monetary side. In my view, the two sides cannot be separated, so the land issue deserves as much thought as the money side. That being said, clearly I have spent MUCH more time on the money side when it comes to my Substack articles. (I really need to change that and devote more time to discussing the land side.)
I will not be able to communicate the entire subject or convince you of it all at once, but I welcome an ongoing dialogue. Toward that end, I would ask you to consider the concept of private property generally (not just as it pertains to land). I think you would agree that private property is a uniquely human construct. Animals do not understand or respect property rights. They are not something that exist in nature. Man chooses to invent to concept of property rights. So, what is the fundamental basis of property rights? How does one establish a legitimate claim to property?
I would argue that human labor is the fundamental basis of property rights -- i.e. if you make it, you own it. So if you build a house, for example, that house is legitimately your property. But you did not make the land that house sits on. No one did. It existed prior to man. Therefore it cannot become private property on the basis of human labor. (How to practically separate ownership of land from ownership of improvements to land (i.e. houses, factories, crops, etc.) is another very important part of the subject that I will defer getting into for the time-being, because it is a complex topic that deserves a separate discussion.)
So when it comes to land, you have to either advance a different foundational principle than human labor upon which to base property rights, or you must recognize that land cannot be legitimately, privately owned. If the basis of private property is human labor, the only way land can become private property is by illegitimate use of force -- i.e. violence and/or theft. And it doesn't matter if a piece of land has changed hands a hundred times since the original illegitimate act of violence/theft. If legitimate ownership cannot be established in the first place, obviously it cannot be legitimately transferred to someone else.
Obviously there's much more to say on the subject, but that's a good place to start. I am also going to share something I wrote on my personal facebook page but haven't yet posted on Substack. It's basically just a collection of excerpts from Gesell's book on the subject of land. It's powerful stuff (in my opinion) and may help you start to break free of the old way of thinking about land. I will try to post it later today.
As to the property in animal kingdom, will not a pack of wolves defend their territory from another pack or whomever? So they can be said to have occupied that piece of land and made it their property, can't they?
---
Do these ideas have any connection whatsoever to Klaus Schwab's "you will own nothing and be happy"?
What you describe is not property rights. It is possession, not ownership. Possession exists in nature. Ownership does not. That is a crucial distinction. Gesell supports possession but not ownership.
Property rights would mean that if the pack of wolves goes on family vacation they would have an enforceable claim to the piece of land when they get back.
Ok, let's say I am old and live on small pension alone. Now I would have to pay a rent for the land on which my apartment sits...