Hacker News Reader

> Property ownership is a form of democracy that is necessary in human societies.

I smell applause lights. Property ownership and democracy are entirely different concepts.

Also, the things you mention, while being true on Earth, aren't necessarily true in Space (at the moment). Pollution isn't an issue except possibly in Earth's orbit. "Protecting the environment" is another way of saying "keeping the environment friendly to humans". There is no human friendly environment in Space to protect (within our reach). I'm all for land ownership on Moon or Mars but we should probably have this discussion in a few decades when some people actually live there permanently (at which point they will most likely form their own independent government anyways).

Pollution will eventually be a problem in any given orbit, which is a shame, because orbits tend to happen around interesting places we want to go.

Once we have a society that lives, works and builds in orbit there will likely be active recycling.

Or really powerful lasers for vaporizing debris in orbit. :)

I smell applause lights. Property ownership and democracy are entirely different concepts.

Right. You can have democracy without property ownership. However, property ownership and Liberty are inextricably entangled. You can't be free if you can't have a high degree of control of the fruits of your labor.

"Property ownership and democracy are entirely different concepts."

They go hand in hand.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters...

The poorest countries in the world are ones with little property rights. Especially ones operating on communal land ownership principals.

Space MUST be owned. Humans do not invest in, nor do they take care of or clean up things they cannot own. Case-in-point: Great Pacific Garbage Patch...

I live in a land of suburban sprawl; every square inch is owned by somebody. But litter is everywhere and and decay is easy enough to find. I'd guess the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is actually cleaner.

I'd guess that polluters and litterers aren't generally in doubt of the ownership status of the areas they pollute; on the contrary, they're certain that they do not own the areas they pollute. The high school kids who drop their empty soda pop bottles on my lawn aren't in doubt about the ownership status of that lawn. They merely avoid dropping their pop bottles on their own lawns.

Do you suppose that if we arbitrarily decided that the Pacific belonged to (say) China, that China would launch some sort of ocean clean-up force, because hey, that's their land? Do you suppose globally, litter would stop finding its way into the ocean, out of concern for polluting the sovereign property of China?

I understand your argument. While nothing will stop people from polluting, land ownership does encourage people to clean up the unavoidable pollution. Assuming your county's code is enforced. Property owners can get in trouble for leaving trash on their land. It doesn't matter where it came from, if it's on your land, it's your problem. The little bits of trash you find on your property are nothing, volunteers find tons of garbage in the forests, rivers, abandoned or derelict properties that no one owns. You might get annoyed by all the trash the teenagers deposit in your yard, but what you aren't seeing are the massive amounts of garbage they throw in the streets, storm drains, side of the road which tumbles off into rivers and streams. When it's on your land, you see it. When it's not, you don't.

Romania had so much garbage that volunteers launched "Let's Do It" http://www.letsdoitworld.org/country/romania a national cleanup campaign where over 200,000 people volunteered to cleanup the forests from illegal dumpings. They planned for 3 weeks, geolocated 6,500 waste piles, and in 24 hours assembled in massive droves to the locations, picked it up in 350,000 full sized black bags and hauled it away. It was the most successful social cleanup campaign in the world at the time and has been done EVERY YEAR. This cleanup effort happens every single year. That's how bad our garbage problem is.

- http://www.toonaripost.com/2011/09/green-world/lets-do-it-ro...

If someone owned the Pacific Ocean it would be in their best interest to protect it. It's fish stocks, it's ecology. If it made money from this ownership it can pay for lawyers, lobbyists, enforcers, representatives, campaigns, tv spots. It could at least try to charge countries a penalty for the garbage that flows in by surveying which country it comes from (garbage is traceable) and how much of it comes in. Contrary to popular belief there are international laws. The US, China, India, and everyone else can't just dump waste into another country's territory (not for free at least). I the Ocean territory were owned, there would at least be someone to sue on behalf of that ocean's interests & protect fisheries when their fish stock become exhausted due to over-fishing.

Of course nothing is perfect, but with humans being extreme opportunists, self-regulation is not an option here. And rules can only be made if someone's interested are threatened, and interests are weak if ownership doesn't exist.

What made you think the author was suggesting space should be exploited without use of tools like ownership and investment?

In fact, he even says about space: "We need to take it". If that doesn't imply intended ownership I don't what does. He even goes on to say: "It will belong to humans. To people." So why on Earth are you calling him futile and foolish for eschewing notions of ownership? I'm beginning to think you only read the article title.

Quite obviously the main thrust of the article is a call to arms to forgo petty nationalistic concerns, and to embrace the space project as a rational undivided planetary population. His excitement was infectious, and the idea a worthy one, but I don't think there's much more to read in to it.

(I did read the whole article from top to bottom.)

When space exploration and colonization of planets and moons will costs trillions of dollars over decades (the international space station alone costs $150 billion, costs $650 million every shuttle launch) how can a country invest so much into something that will be fruitless for the nation?

Now I'm with him in terms of desire. I don't "like" any ONE country to own mars or the moon in the same I way a lot of early Americans, African Nations, Indians, etc... didn't "like" being owned by the British Empire. But we have to be realistic, when the people of a colony (on the moon or mars) use taxpayer funded space ships, equipment, support, fuel to reach and colonize that planet or moon and depend on their home country for constant sustenance. Claiming independence is ridiculous and just not going to happen. I wouldn't blame them for desiring independence, but that's just not possible given the expensive nature of interplanetary exploration. The only way to have an independent Mars is to hope for privatized space exploration. Not like NASA + SpaceX but a completely private space program. From funding to execution, from creation to exploration to maintenance.

I'm sure the early explorers' bankrollers and later colonizing powers thought along similar lines. And yet the Americas are neither French nor English or Spanish nor Portuguese properties.

The America's didn't require water and food to be constantly shipped from France, England, or Spain on government funds. This isn't another continent, this is another planet. The rules are different.

Humans do not invest in, nor do they take care of or clean up things they cannot own.

These seem rather quaint concepts when talking about space.

Unlike the oceans or our home-planet, space is vast. Apart from some tiny areas where cleaning is mandatory (e.g. our own orbit, or common travel-routes) it just doesn't care about the scales of waste that we can possibly shoot in any general direction.

Yes, corporations will own things in space, e.g. planets that we will mine for resources.

But space itself is indeed best likened to the oceans. We'll pollute it just like the oceans, but in this case it will (gladly) most likely not matter.

"Apart from some tiny areas where cleaning is mandatory (e.g. our own orbit"

Very true, and may I add this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14763668

Basically, we're going to have a lot of cleanup problems in the very near future with Earth's orbit.

"Humans do not invest in, nor do they take care of or clean up things they cannot own."

On the other hand, humans fight wars because of things they think they own / want to own.

You appear to argue that a western concept of property rights is essential to guaranteeing some sort of magical, responsible custodianship of earth / space.

You use the Great Pacific Garbage Patch as your first example, which has nothing to do with absence of private ownership of the seas and everything to do with industrialisation, a throwaway consumer culture, and the ability of corporations to avoid the cost and consequences of environmental externalities.

I get a sense you're actually arguing the tragedy of the commons, and asserting that total private ownership is the solution to the tragedy. But ownership in itself does nothing to enforce good behaviour on bad actors. You need societal rules that are enforced, and they can be enforced in any situation, regardless of whether the situation is private or commons property.

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't support your argument either. You use personal experience related to garbage cleanups to assert that pollution only really occurs in common property areas. Yet some of the worst environmental disasters and cleanup sites are on private property operated by mining and chemical companies. The dirtiest, most polluted locations are often urban areas in cities where private ownership is highly concentrated. Some of the cleanest areas in cities are commons areas, such as public parks.

You imply that Africa's poverty is as a result of traditional "communal lands" systems, when in reality the first world simply steals Africa's wealth through financial and military force to bump up Western living standards. An alternate scenario where Africa had a private property rights tradition would have done little to stop more powerful nations from seizing their resources by various means.

Finally, there's a certain irony in your position, when it could be argued that private property rights narrow the focus and encourage self-interest whereas a more traditional 'communal' view of the land has been associated with a broader and deeper connection with the land, and a healthier sense of custodianship.

"I get a sense you're actually arguing the tragedy of the commons"

Above all yes. One can only be punished if one has broken a law, a law can only exist if someone cared to argue in its favor and have it created, the motivation to care exists only when the interests of someone are threatened. It doesn't work like that 100% of the time but it's a consistent basic rule of humanity.

"the first world simply steals Africa's wealth"

Simply steals it? The wealth of an entire continent? That's unsubstantiated rhetoric used to simplify a complex problem to American viewers. Many African nations have mineral deposits, land, even diamonds. But don't have wealth because they lack the ingredients to harness the power of their natural resources. Historians have studied America for a long time to try to determine how out of all the world's nations, the West has dominated. It's influence, it's money, it's language, it's ideas, inventions, and culture are everywhere. Why not China? Why not Europe? Historians boiled it down to more or less 5 things. With Land Ownership being one of the most important things that leads towards a democracy and free market. Advancement in Science, freedom of expression & religion, follow afterward. Even countries that are growing in power and influence are doing so by mimicking the values that got the West where it is. Land ownership + Freedom of expression + consumerism + free markets + Scientific, educational, and technological advancements.

Land ownership and democracy go hand in hand. "Up to 90% of sub-Saharan Africa's land area is currently untitled. Without legal owners, this land falls to the state, which makes it easy to lease to foreign investors". The whole point of a democracy is to make it difficult for dictators to make massive decisions affecting an entire country. Without land ownership in Africa all you have to do is bribe one or two officials to get massive amounts of land. If Africa had stronger land ownership rights this would not be possible. Land would be sold by the owner with it's owner benefiting from the sale. Thus giving locals power and the ability to accrue wealth. Instead the people of a land work to maintain and live off of it but can lose it through no fault of their own due to a decision by someone they don't even know.

"a more traditional 'communal' view of the land has been associated with a broader and deeper connection with the land, and a healthier sense of custodianship."

You're thinking of the Native Americans from hundreds of years ago before the industrial revolution and consumerism. That doesn't work anymore, Neither in country nor continent. The poorest countries in the world use the communal land system. And it's that system that keeps them poor. They can't build or sell anything because they don't own anything to begin with.

This sounds like a repeat of when Europeans came to the Americas. There were no environmental issues (other than natural ones) in the Americas before "Land Ownership". Land Ownership created deforestation and pollution, not the other way around.

Deforestation causes erosion of top soil, nutrient imbalances, dust storms and land slides. Even the type of farming that goes hand and hand with land ownership causes environment problems.

This view seems like foolhardy view, endorsed because of its prevalence on earth in powerful nations.

Regarding point #2, poverty is relative. Although you may consider not having internet to be poverty, much of the world couldn't care less about it. Hunter/Gathers native to Sudan, central, and south africa live the way they do because it is considered to be their culture (they choose to do it). So there is no "poverty" to be talked about. "Being behind" and "Building wealth" sound like nonsense that they deliberately want no parts of. Their state is not something they're trying to get away from. It is desired. So your notion of 'not owning land' put them in this position is false. Their will-power is why they live traditionally, not land ownership.

Living natively didn't cause the land grab. Other people's notions of land ownership is what caused the land grab. If it were not for people who think they own land, there would have been no land grab...

Your logic seems to be completely backwards.

There were no environmental issues in the Americas before "Land Ownership".

That was before the industrial revolution and consumerism. That's why America was so pristine and clean.

The deforestation was due to farming not necessarily land ownership. Go to maps.google.com and look up any eastern US state. You'll find that almost all the deforestation is due to farming fields. Deforestation and farming happens even in communal lands. And that happens because people need food (either to eat or to export to others who want to eat). Deforestation will happen with or without land ownership.

"Living natively didn't cause the land grab. Other people's notions of land ownership is what caused the land grab."

That's like saying "Living without an army didn't cause a country to lose the war. Other people's notions of invade & conquer is what caused the war." Well of course. When the whole world operates on the notions of land ownership and great countries are built on those rules, not having it screws a country. My argument has some flaws because with or without land ownership humans are reckless. They're just more likely to be punished or motivated when they own something. But you seem to be unable to make the connection between Africa's lack of growth, lack of investment, and extreme poverty and the inability to own land. Do people really think Africa is going to get somewhere like this?! This defies all historical examples of nation and empire building. It ignores history. As if tribal lands are really going to give birth to a wealthy, healthy nation. This is just Ludicrous.

"Being behind" and "Building wealth" sound like nonsense that [African's] deliberately want no parts of. Their state is not something they're trying to get away from. It is desired." & "[African's] will-power is why they live traditionally, not land ownership."

I honestly cannot believe you uttered that statement. At this point, there's no reason to debate with someone that ignores so much history, so much suffering, so many problems, and so much struggle, and writes it off as simply "they don't mind it at all, they like it". This is why we need better world history in American classrooms.