I can follow the idea of owning a piece of land, where other people can’t just be. Somewhere where people can’t just take things from, or alter by cutting down a tree f.eks.
But owning land in order to keep people away from it, with the only purpose being to make people pay to view the piece of land is crossing the line.
I don’t know where the line exactly is, but it’s somewhere between having a place you live or a place where you use the land for a direct benefitial purpose for the community, however large or small, and keeping people away from a piece of land with the purpose of manufacturing scarcity in order to get paid to allow people on said land, without an actual beneficial purpose for the community.
The community would have a lot more benefit from the crater, if the person didn’t keep people away from it for no other reason than greed. The same can’t (at least not always) be said about a farm, or your livingroom.
In this case the land that contains the crater is valuable because it is uniquely fascinating to visitors, so I would treat it like a national park. It makes sense to reserve it as an exceptional public resource even granting private land ownership as a general practice.
Why can’t the same be said about a farm? The only value in a crater of this sort is spectacle and maybe it is interesting from a geological history standpoint. But every piece of land must have its own geological history and I love seeing farms. So what does that mean for land ownership? I personally find the arrogance of man to be interesting and weird at the same time. “Look, we carved up the place that created us and decided we’ll trade them.” It’s simultaneously very animalistic like how big cats have territories and also uniquely awfully engineered just for mankind.
The community would have a lot more benefit from the crater
I mean, someone has to own it. The community? But who in the community? An organization? The local government? Then, what if they charge money? This kinda situation is unavoidable. I’m not saying it should be abolished, I just find it interesting.
MBech@feddit.dk 3 days ago
I can follow the idea of owning a piece of land, where other people can’t just be. Somewhere where people can’t just take things from, or alter by cutting down a tree f.eks.
But owning land in order to keep people away from it, with the only purpose being to make people pay to view the piece of land is crossing the line.
I don’t know where the line exactly is, but it’s somewhere between having a place you live or a place where you use the land for a direct benefitial purpose for the community, however large or small, and keeping people away from a piece of land with the purpose of manufacturing scarcity in order to get paid to allow people on said land, without an actual beneficial purpose for the community.
The community would have a lot more benefit from the crater, if the person didn’t keep people away from it for no other reason than greed. The same can’t (at least not always) be said about a farm, or your livingroom.
KombatWombat@lemmy.world 1 day ago
In this case the land that contains the crater is valuable because it is uniquely fascinating to visitors, so I would treat it like a national park. It makes sense to reserve it as an exceptional public resource even granting private land ownership as a general practice.
lastweakness@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Why can’t the same be said about a farm? The only value in a crater of this sort is spectacle and maybe it is interesting from a geological history standpoint. But every piece of land must have its own geological history and I love seeing farms. So what does that mean for land ownership? I personally find the arrogance of man to be interesting and weird at the same time. “Look, we carved up the place that created us and decided we’ll trade them.” It’s simultaneously very animalistic like how big cats have territories and also uniquely awfully engineered just for mankind.
I mean, someone has to own it. The community? But who in the community? An organization? The local government? Then, what if they charge money? This kinda situation is unavoidable. I’m not saying it should be abolished, I just find it interesting.