Raulito Supports Private Home Ownership!

Raulito has taken the next step upward into distributism. The Cuban government yesterday passed regulations that acknowledge the right of state workers to live long term in their houses and pass them to relatives after their death.

The New York Times opines, "The decision seemed to inch property rights forward...." The newspaper does offer the move "stopped well short of allowing the unfettered purchase and sale of private homes."

(Raulito: please note the new posting for a blogsite devoted to the ChesterBelloc Mandate. I am just beginning to review it and we need not swallow the whole pill, but we can seek some guidance. I do note an unnecessary hostility to Darwin, so we may have to rewrite or challenge certain parts).

Now, Raulito, that we have moved toward private ownership of land, what should that ownership look like? Should we move to the "unfettered purchase and sale of private homes?" What if, for instance, Walmart was not satisfied with a mere monopoly of retail sales and jobs and decided to buy up all the houses. They certainly could go a long way in that direction. Would that "unfettered purchase and sale" be OK?

I think, Raulito, you may want to prohibit corporate ownership of land.

Maybe short-term corporate ownership would be OK until a house is finished and may be sold, but long term ownership would be dangerous. I mean, given a chance, corporations could buy up all the water, oil and gas and air. Yeah, I know corporations owning the air may seem funny, but remember when potable water came from the tap and you did not have to buy it from the Coca Cola Company?

Certainly, anyone actually living in a house should have a valid title and anyone buying a house with the intention of living in it should be able to take valid title.

It would also seem reasonable that until everyone had someplace to live, no one should have three or four houses.

The government exercises claims for eminent domain to take title to property they want. Just ask all those folks who are about to get a wall through their backyards. The government can even now exercise eminent domain for the benefit of private building projects. (Kelo v. City of New London).

Why can't we have restrictive covenants in deeds allowing transfer based on human needs? I mean, we have them for all types of other silly things like, brick versus wood siding and wooden versus hurricane fencing. We used to allow them to keep out unpopular races. We still use them to keep out children. (Can this possibly be Right?)

Why not establish some principles of private ownership of land and houses: Human beings over corporations. Children, handicapped and infirm over healthy adults. Habitation over commercial use. Homeless over summer house. Bigger houses for big families, smaller houses for smaller families. Something along those lines.

I know this is very vague, but my hunch is that some real estate lawyer legislative draftsman type has already figured out how to do it.

Then allow a human being to file for human eminent domain.

Hang in there, Raulito, I am sure you and me and our fellow distributionists can figure this all out.