Is private property "sustainable"?

> ...security of places sustainable?

I think you nailed it on the essential desire. But...

There's gonna be death and taxes in one form or another wherever you go, whatever you get into. If you want your garden to be good it's going to take regular input - essentially forever. (Food forest? That's going to take regular work too.) I think it's more about what's acceptable to a person when it comes to what is required to keep something (their property?) going.

If by "sustainable" you mean that one is OK with the required input/maintenance (all the moneys, duties, dealings, etc that go with property) - well, like much else, "that depends" <g> more on the person you ask rather than on the rules of property. What dues/taxes/duties/inputs/effort do people here find acceptable to maintain their good life? When/what makes something become "unsustainable"?

"Property" is out there for us to use if we have the resources. It has a long track record, is fairly easy to understand the rules and people seem willing, mostly, to abide the rules. It has a lot going for it, more than most other "security of place" options. The big drawback is cost and the required perseverance, discipline and strength. Many have the first, far fewer the other.

Given an acceptable definition of "sustainable", maybe an interesting direction/question would be what other options does a person in the Western world have for security of place needs besides property. I guess you could point to intentional communities but to my mind they are FAR riskier than simple property ownership. There are probably other options though...


Rufus

I like the idea of ownership and that ownership provides me with security of place. With ownership comes responsibility that hard work, perseverance, discipline and strength you mention. It also requires infrastructure inputs outside the property that allows that boundary to be drawn.
I am of the opinion that the only right one is truly given is the right of security of person, anything else is an access issue. There is no right to have a place, inputs are required.
Taxes, fees, duties, tariffs allow infrastructure access that is required for community. Schools, roads, libraries are not free and for my security of place I see my responsibility to contribute. Despite my desire to do it all I know I need that surrounding community to exist.
Any community could be described as an intentional community, they all are identified by a boundary the difference being local governance or restrictions. I'm unaware of any Western intentional community that provides property gratis.
Access to affordable property now that is an issue.

the only right one is truly given is the right of security of person

Not sure about that terminology. Who's "giving" such a right? How is that possible? I mean clearly that's not how it works out for most people... At that rate a "truly given right" and $2.50 might get a coffee! Either that or most people just give up or fail to exercise their right; but I don't think that makes sense because while many people act in foolish and misguided ways would _that_ many actually choose the positions they're in if it were s matter of choice? Well, maybe... <g>

It sounds like you mean maintaining your "security of person" is what would justify extreme measures and provides a "master justification" and the final rule in decision making?

The "Rights" word gets some hairy.

... infrastructure...

That's probably the other side of the property coin - the side nobody actually talks about when discussing property. Especially the laws and the abiding by laws that allow, create and maintain property. Property does not live in a vacuum and when analyzing and criticizing property we really are also talking about our like or dislike of the supporting structures.

Rufus

Just picked this off another forum thread. About 35 min. in it shows how some people went through property issues.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=H8j8C9zrA_I

That would be my description of security of person. With the societal norms tempering justification as you describe. Extreme measures, master justification and final rule in decision making makes it sound a bit violent. All decisions go through that process. Situation (may or may not be extreme) Action choices (acceptable justification) Action (final decision)
That word or category "right" does create a quandary. A particular society and accepted governance gives away the privilege or right and it definitely isn't the same from country to country. If you were alone on a deserted island there are no rights because there is no one else to protect you from.
Birthright doesn't fit in I can't think of anything I'm entitled to just from being born. Having a child in the US doesn't mean that you have unfettered rights and total control of your child, unfortunately for most, fortunate in some cases when abuse occurs.
Infrastructure all the things you don't think about until the toilet over flows.