1
2
3
Wealth and Want | |||||||
... because democracy alone is not enough to produce widely shared prosperity. | |||||||
Home | Essential Documents | Themes | All Documents | Authors | Glossary | Links | Contact Us |
Native
Americans and Land
Chief Seattle Bill Batt: How Our Towns Got That Way (1996 speech) Rutgers Professor of Urban
Planning Donald Krueckeberg more
recently explained how real property became for the first time a
"commodity," much as the market gives personal property exchange
value. Native Americans tied the concept of property not to ownership
but to use. "One used it, one moved on, and use was shared with
others." But the colonists took their notion of real property from
evolving British legal tradition, defined largely in terms of what
its owners could subdue and control against challengers. John Locke's
conception of property was, in one sense, more akin to the Indian
notion in as much as one owned it only to the extent that one "mixed
one's labor" with it. ... read the whole article
Bill Batt: The Compatibility of Georgist Economics and Ecological Economics Hence it becomes important,
critically important, to understand the
meaning of “ownership” and “property” in the Georgist lexicon. But it
is not difficult, for they continue to have their classical meanings,
just as for John Locke, Adam Smith, and all the major forerunners and
thinkers of classical economics until the advent of neoclassical
economics. What was the meaning of ownership and property in their
classical sense? Property was the product of human labor and capital,
and that alone. Items of property were household goods, personal
attire, armaments, and similar such goods. Property belonged in the
category of capital. Land was not part of property, but rather was its
own category. Land, broadly defined,
belonged to everyone and was the common heritage of all humanity.15 One could no more “own” land than one
could own water, air, or other parts of nature, at least in the sense
of ownership that people often use today. Much like the
native-American concept of ownership, it was part of what was
classically called “ the commons.” 16 “What
is this you call property?” Massasoit, a leader of the Wampanoag, asked
the Plymouth colonists whom he had befriended in the 1620s. “It cannot
be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children,
beasts, birds, fish, and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on
it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say
it belongs to him?” 17
Not only are human beings co-equal with other living beings of the earth, so also are beings yet born entitled to an existence. The Iroquois Indians of New York State are often quoted to the effect that “In our every deliberation, we should consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.” 101 Several contemporary environmental organizations have adopted the Iroquois “Great Law of Peace” so that it has become the vernacular equivalent of the Brundtland Report’s definition of sustainability. Sustainable economics, or 7th generation planning, also requires Daly’s “steady state” economy, 102 where (as if natural resources constitute “capital”) one lives only on interest and not principle. Daly contrasts two notions of economic practice: growth and development. The former may momentarily increase economic productivity and wealth, but is in the long term a fatal course of policy. It increases quantity but not quality. Development, rather, is what should be aspired to, an increase in quality, efficiency, and fulfillment through minimal uses of energy and material resources. For development, the value-added dimension comes from treading lightly on the earth, from the use of mental capital rather than physical capital.103 Daly in still another article talks about three parameters of sustainability: “allocation, distribution, and scale,” which will lead to an economy which is “efficient, just and sustainable.” 104 ... read the whole article Indeed Georgists see a moral equivalency between monopoly ownership of land and nature and the ownership of slaves! ... Bill Batt: How the Railroads Got Us On the Wrong Economic Track Rutgers Professor of Urban
Planning Donald Krueckeberg more
recently explained how real property became for the first time a
"commodity," much as the market gives personal property exchange
value. Native Americans tied the concept of property not to
ownership but to use. "One used it, one moved on, and use was
shared with others." But the colonists took their notion of real
property from evolving British legal tradition, defined largely in
terms of what its owners could subdue and control against
challengers. John Locke's conception of property was, in one
sense, more akin to the Indian notion in as much as one owned it only
to the extent that one "mixed one's labor" with it. ... read
the whole article
Mason Gaffney: 18 Fallacies 7. "Economics is
hostile to environmentalism"
Partly wrong, although some economists are guilty as charged. Economics, properly pursued, deals with how best to meet human wants. Recreation, fishing, wildlife, amenities, clean air, pure water, sustained resource supply, watershed protection, good health, and conservation are legitimate human wants. ... Here are four reasons why environmentalists and economists are natural allies. (a) Economizing is conserving. Indians are an extreme case, but
most of us have a streak of their
psychology. Not many generations back we shared the same kind of
culture, a dependence on traditional lands we held in common, in
trust for our descendants. These traditions affect current behavior,
and are totally disregarded in mechanical-type formal micro modeling
(except perhaps as tautological 'revealed preferences'). ... Read
the whole article
|
|
to
email this page to a friend: right click, choose "send"
|
||||||
Wealth
and Want
|
www.wealthandwant.com
|
|||||
... because democracy
alone hasn't yet led to a society in which all can
prosper
|