Secession and Reform

[John Edward Mercier]

So natural order arbitrates that any body of surface water over 20 acres is held in common?

[BillKauffman]

So natural order arbitrates that any body of surface water over 20 acres is held in common?

Common law.

[McDuck]

So natural order arbitrates that any body of surface water over 20 acres is held in common?

Common law.

I think better examples would be land and resource allocation by certain Native American tribes in pre-colonized North America, and the practice of 'open range' cattle grazing supported by American ranchers prior to the creation of barbed wire fencing. 
 

[John Edward Mercier]

As an example of naturally derived common property?

Common property can be held by a group of individuals through consent of contract.
Which is what Native Americans and the Mayflower Compact would have been about. The Compact made game animals and fish common property.

[BillKauffman]

As an example of naturally derived common property?

Common property can be held by a group of individuals through consent of contract.
Which is what Native Americans and the Mayflower Compact would have been about. The Compact made game animals and fish common property.

And the salient point is that common property is an individual not a collective right. The difference being that if property is held jointly (collectively) then one must get the consent of all of the other joint owners before access/use whereas with property held in common one has free and clear use so long as you don't infringe upon the individual rights of anyone else to the same.

See the difference?

[John Edward Mercier]

But public-owned property is for the most point not being treated as such.
Example boats on the lake. Certain sizes and types of boats need to be registered, while others do not.
Those requiring registery are being removed from their tenancy in common.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I believe that "public property" is the cause of most social issues. If any thing is owned by more than on person, there must exist rules on what can be done with that property. There then must be definition on the terms used in those rules. This is where "law" comes from. Incididentally, because the defintions needed to make laws clear are often contrary to commonly held understanding of the terms used, it's why law seems so damn goofy.

Joint ownership is fine

I actually disagree because I think it's simply impossible for two human beings to have entirely consistant plans and definitions. Once those come into conflict, the only solution is to deprive one person of "their" property (via arbitration or force) or deprive BOTH parties of "their" property.

In my mind, the "universal" proof for property ownership extends from the act of eating. Eating is a VERY intimate thing, even more so than sex. Eating takes matter and makes it into a part of our own bodies and sustains life. This is why I consider "life, liberty and property" to be a singular concept and NOT a heirarchy of values. Because a human being must eat, and the act of eating a berry ipso facto deprives other people the ability to eat that same berry, property ownsership is a singular event. Two people can't eat the same berry, no matter how many contracts and stipulations you put upon it. For that reason, I reject that "jointly owned" property can exist.

[BillKauffman]

But public-owned property is for the most point not being treated as such.
Example boats on the lake. Certain sizes and types of boats need to be registered, while others do not.
Those requiring registery are being removed from their tenancy in common.

Your use of the word "public" is much too broad. Use of collective and common property helps.

There is a common right of way that is an individual right that runs thru the collectively owned roads and sidewalks. The use of the collectively owned roads and sidewalks is regulated depending on the amount of damage that can be inflicted upon fellow travellers.

The only regulation upon walkers of the sidewalk in the use of the common right of way is that they can not block (infringe) upon anyone else's equal right to the same use. Apply the same logic to lakes.

[BillKauffman]

I believe that "public property" is the cause of most social issues.

And do you understand the distinction between "collectively owned" and "owned in common"? One being a group joint right and the other an individual individual right.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

And do you understand the distinction between "collectively owned" and "owned in common"? One being a group joint right

Either I see the distinction, and reject it, or there's a false choice fallacy being presented. I am not a collectivist, I hold that ONLY individuals can have rights. No individual has the right to dictate how one person may use their property, therefor no group of individuals have that right, including but not limited to "telling someone they can't block a sidewalk". Furthermore, I reject the so-called "common law" doctrine of "easement".

Is that distinction clear, I want to make sure that I'm communicating my viewpoints effectively.

[BillKauffman]

And do you understand the distinction between "collectively owned" and "owned in common"? One being a group joint right

Either I see the distinction, and reject it, or there's a false choice fallacy being presented. I am not a collectivist, I hold that ONLY individuals can have rights.

Yes, common property is an individual, equal access right. So, you don't see the distinction.

[memenode]

Actually, I think Kevin made an excellent point and I'm compelled to agree that even joint ownership is not fine and reject all forms of "common", "joint", "collective" ownership.

You can own something and then contract it to others for use under your terms and for the time you specify. This doesn't mean that the others who enter into such a contract are co-owners. They're not. The original owner is still the sole owner.

So I'm hard pressed at this point to accept ANY notion of ownership that involves two or more people owning the same thing, even if it is lakes, rivers, parts of rivers, forests or whatever.

Yes, common property is an individual, equal access right. So, you don't see the distinction.

I have another either-or statement.

Either you're being severely vague and unclear about what you're saying (perhaps by "common property" you refer to individual property contracted to others for use under his terms, as described above) OR you're still trying to push the idea of two or more people owning same property, in which case I too reject the idea.

Cheers

[John Edward Mercier]

But public-owned property is for the most point not being treated as such.
Example boats on the lake. Certain sizes and types of boats need to be registered, while others do not.
Those requiring registery are being removed from their tenancy in common.

Your use of the word "public" is much too broad. Use of collective and common property helps.

There is a common right of way that is an individual right that runs thru the collectively owned roads and sidewalks. The use of the collectively owned roads and sidewalks is regulated depending on the amount of damage that can be inflicted upon fellow travellers.

The only regulation upon walkers of the sidewalk in the use of the common right of way is that they can not block (infringe) upon anyone else's equal right to the same use. Apply the same logic to lakes.

One is a restriction... the other is a taxation. The two are mutually exclusive. For example no boat may pass within the a 150 ft zone of another at greater than headway speed. This is a restriction and would affect motorized boats, but not human powered. But the taxation is an infringement of common property rights, its not equal.

It would be the same as if you and I owned property together, while I tent... your expected to pay extra because you use a motorhome. You haven't infringed on my usage, unless you run over my tent injuring me... but you have been infringed upon by unequal costing.

[Free libertarian]

Several of you guys have brought up interesting points regarding property rights in the present day scenario.  Call me old fashioned but I sort of wish I could have lived a century or three ago. Fewer people, more available land if you didn't mind removing the indigenous people at the point of a gun or because it was god's will, etc. Multiple continents to venture onto too. I'm also a fan of the American Indian, if you're not using it, why is it your land thing, but that doesn't fly today for  alot of reasons.

I submit where we are now could be a transitional stepping stone back to a feudal system where the average person "owns" nothing and is merely a tenant. Some would say we are already there. Instead of kings and lords we now have a kinder gentler softer fuedal system with twinkies and T.V but fuedal nevertheless...some might even say a "futile" system. 

[John Edward Mercier]

Native Americans land ownership was 'tenancy in common'. But they did own land, as most tribes were extremely territorial.