Single Idea 21738

[catalogued under 25. Society / C. Social Justice / 4. Legal Rights / c. Property rights]

Full Idea

Why should we not regard land as originally collectively owned rather than, as Nozick takes for granted, owned by no one?

Gist of Idea

Maybe land was originally collectively owned, rather than unowned?

Source

comment on Robert Nozick (Anarchy,State, and Utopia [1974], p.178) by G.A. Cohen - Are Freedom and Equality Compatible? 2

Book Reference

'Contemporary Political Philosophy (2nd ed)', ed/tr. Goodin,RE/Pettit,P [Blackwell 2006], p.420


A Reaction

Did native Americans and Australians collectively own the land? Lots of peoples, I suspect, don't privately own anything, because the very concept has never occured to them (and they have no legal system).