Private property prevents the system from changing

# 4051

Land and buildings in most communities were in the deep past owned by the community. In many parts of the world, there was a move toward the ownership of everything from the community to the king. Some of the arguments in favor of monarchy saw monarchy as preferable because, since the king owned everything, he felt some responsibility to develop and maintain everything, a systems view lost in a private property regime.

It is helpful to understand where the words came from - their social history. Property comes from proper: what is proper in society to show a person’s rank. In many societies wearing the wrong clothes could lead to the death penalty/. We still have language like, “Are you dressed properly for te party?” private is trickier. It comes from the Latin pri-vatus. meaning to remove from te public realm. The implication in the use was that the object went dead because it lost its place in the flow of life in the community. Understanding that private and property are subject to changes in history. s suggests that maybe we could do the same.

Private& property disrupts this whole system by giving ownership to some a people nd not others. Buildings and land were no longer seen as the responsibility of authority but of owners who of course managed it for their own benefit. Take for example manufacturing. Chemicals have been systematically disposed of in nearby nature: streams and air.

Each, owner wants to hold on to what they have, and this makes change almost impossible . Change is experienced as a threat to ownership by most owners. With oqnwerah community is divided up into pieces like a jigsaw puzzle. The community is divided up into incommensurate pieces where each piece has a place but lacks the fluidity to fit anywhere else in the puzzle. Is there a form of ownership society that does not impose such constraints on the future?

Changing the culture of ownership of private property. because the ownership system is opposed to the changes that we need. The only alternative would be if there is a form of ownership society that does not impose such constraints on the future. I have tentatively concluded that property, which is a form of social status identification, cannot change unless social stratification is based on something other than land and things. The logic, here is that property and ownership are structures that prevent change, and while changing them, might seem like unnecessarily large change, but not changing them means we all die, which is an unnecessarily larger change.

(toward an alternative :

When will you return?
When you love each other
I. will be there. )