Arugmentation (Was: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.)

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Wed Apr 3 22:50:49 UTC 2002


On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Craighead, Scot D wrote:
> OK, so what if I have something and it is realized that it is special?  
> What if someone finds oil on the land that I own and live on for
> example?  At that point, should my land become a public asset and
> people could come and demolish my house so that they could drill for
> the oil?

Assuming that we haven't moved beyond such destructive and illogical
behavior as basing social needs on unsustainable resources?

And there's no way that getting to the oil under your home would require
drilling on your property unless your property spanned a hundred square
miles.

But I digress... let's say it's some hypothetical situation that cannot be
reasoned around practically...

So there's a resource directly under your home (perhaps just inches below
the foundation) that would benefit thousands of people.

There are three different ways of looking at this.

First, let me remind you what is meant by the term "means of production".  
The means of production are land, labor and capital, if you recall from
your economics courses.  The goal here is to make abundant that which can
be abundant and democratize that which is not.  A free society ensures
that labor is in the hands of the people by preventing private tyrannies
and giving laborers choice.  Capital is personalty and capital, with
regards to the means of production, is movable property required for a
particular productive task.  Capital is what must continue to be abundant
in order to assure personal property.  Land is realty and land, until our
society extends beyond this rock called Earth or shrinks to at most one
tenth its current population, is scarce.

In your example, we're talking about two things that are not abundant and
therefore cannot become personal property: the resource under the home and
the land itself.  For if the resource under the home were abundant, the
home would be safe to keep some of it underneath without disturbance.

Second, I'd say that the land, realty, is not yours and never was.  How
can you claim domain over a thing that is permanent while you are so
temporary?  Your immediate desires are insignificant to the needs of the
planet as a whole because when you are no longer a memory, the planet will
still be living.  So I would argue that your claim of absolute control of
the land is invalid.

Third, do you really believe that your convenience is more important than
that public benefit?

Why would you not willingly relocate to get the benefit of the resource?

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list