[Jdanz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would expect democractically within the community. There are plenty of issues we both face where there is no clear inflection point, not a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this just boils down to a complete absence of private land. If the social norm is such that the allocation of land to individuals is decided democratically, then an individual does not own land in any meaningful sense; the majority always has eminent domain. "Private" land in such a system would be illusory; land can only appear to be private if the majority have elected for the "owner" to have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

For what it's worth this is where i differ from AC in a big way. This is how all property works in the real world, all the time, without exception. Not neccessarily by simple majority but by whatever the prevailing social norms may be (could easily be fear of an autocrat with guns and thugs). Private property is by any reasonable definition illusory.

This is worlds away from saying social norms that grant private property aren't quite useful, only that private property is a consequence of prevailing social norms and in no way inherent.