It was at its most static however along the trenches of the Western Front where from late until the Spring of the war was not one of movement but rather one of attrition.
No Man’s Land - Bishop Auckland Town Hall
During this period the area of No Man's Land scarcely varied although its width would vary widely from sector to sector, from one kilometre to as little as a few hundred yards as at Vimy Ridge for example. In the latter instance troops would be able to overhear conversation from their opposing trenches or readily lob grenades into their midst.
No Man's Land was not however barren of activity. During nightfall each side would despatch parties to spy on the enemy, or to repair or extend barbed wire posts. Reconnaissance missions were similarly common.
Tragedy of the Commons is a real thing. I have seen it with large rivers, oceans, and college rentals when I was a college student.
I have also seen how large forest preserves — like in NYS — treat land worse than a commodity, but as a museum where human disconnect only grows. After all, what are you preserving when you still need forest products? It seems Americans take private property for granted today. Sure, you could say that private gain can be selfish, but then who would create the internet or fix your car without compensation? Let me address your arguments. I think you have a few misconceptions. Taking them in order, there is a difference between intellectual property and personal possessions and property in land.
No socialist would suggest that no one should own anything. Capitalism has not proven itself a steward of the public good. There would have been no need for a conservation movement to protect forests and animal populations if the market were self-regulating. Corporations certainly have no such sense of stewardship, or else we would not have mountaintop removal mining and superfund sites. It is simply historically false that a commonly held resource is always destroyed. Only where profit and competitive individualism reign over all other values do we see rapid degradation of environments.
Your example of forests treated as museums has to do with land management, not with the role of public policy in protecting it from industry. It makes no sense to say that a forest poorly managed is no different from a clear cut. I agree that people take care of their own, as long as we are talking about homes and small property owners. And on the question of whether we have capitalism to thank for the Internet, think again.
Government research created it in federally funded labs. It was not imaged as a for-profit system and yet humans invented it anyway. Diffusion of private property- I see a distinctly retrograde ideal in such a concept that I highly doubt could ever be achieved, unless all of humanity also retreats to the same or similar feudal system which led to the distribution of private property to begin with.
And yes, those lords DID own the land. They held title. When someone has the power to tell you what can, cannot do, and what should or should not be done on that parcel of ground, they do indeed own it. The Magna Carta made that pretty clear. Our own government is really no different, since titled landowners today still must get permission to hold title to all parcels of land, contingent upon the will or whim of government as to what uses it may or may not be put to. Ownership is ownership, be it of our own bodies, our possessions, our domiciles, or the land on which they sit.
Great article, thank you. Are you familiar with Georgism? I did an independent research project on land and property, and stumbled upon this concept. Make people truly pay for what they are using and did not create! The other key piece is to not tax anything else — incomes, buildings, personal property, since these are all things we created or earned. Property is essentially a sweet deal that some are able to buy their way into. Georgism seeks to eliminate this, by taxing away that additional value. Land would essentially have no market value — raw land could not be sold because if the rent tax is high enough the value would settle at zero.
- Yakari - Volume 3 - Yakari and the Beavers;
- Selectors, Specificity, and the Cascade: Applying CSS3 to Documents!
- The Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1790: Together with a Summary of the Chief Events in Jeffersons Life.
- The Legend of What Actually Lived in the “No Man’s Land” Between World War I’s Trenches?
- Orion Magazine | No Man's Land?
- No Man's Land;
The only value would be for those using it to the fullest within laws , so there would be no incentive to own and not use land. If we charged enough for it, people would not have the resale incentive to let it sit idle and appreciate, but would pass it on to someone who wanted to use it.
- No Man’s Land.
- Ei kenenkään maa () - IMDb!
None of this would prevent governments and communities from making environmental and other land use laws to pursue social goals. It frees up land, prevents land speculation, eliminates the up-front costs that prevent so many from owning property, and encourages efficient use. It is also an intuitively fair source of funds for public use. Georgism is the presursor to community land trusts, which also seek to remove the market value of land, though through a different mechanism. It was a huge movement in the late s and retains a small but loyal following today.
Marcia: I agree that there are problems with diffusing property rights. Without true land reform there is the problem of debt. Bush, c. The mortgage disaster was caused, in part, by a poor policy to diffuse property rights! So why not land reform? Giving away ownership with social incentives for its use and improvement would erode the value of land and make it less a repository of wealth and thus of class privilege, as April suggests in the next comment.
For those who say that giving land away would amount to the destruction of civilization, I would only say that people said the same thing about the eight-hour day, the minimum wage, income taxes, social welfare, and the end of the gold standard.
Your discussion of lords is a little inexact. I have to make a historical point. I assume you mean lords before enclosure, since after they were outright owners.
Yes, they did have control over some land, and yes that looks a lot like ownership, but I can assure you that they were subject to a vast catalogue of tenures and procedures. Communities of peasant and religious elites had real control over what happened to land in manors and villages. This is why the lords wanted a new degree of control. Feudal rights did not include the right to sell except within villages or manors among certain peasants. So it is different. I would argue that real estate is so fungible, so utterly alienable, that it represents a fundamentally different relationship to land.
There is also this pervasive idea that socialized land would be poorly taken care and that land under capitalism is better managed for being private. I find this curious. There is no form of social organization that guarantees perfect stewardship. American Indians so often depicted as ecological saints operated with imperfect information and over-burned and over-hunted. But people in the past tended to see the land that they occupied as land that fed them, as homeland.
Capitalism drives a wedge between occupancy and ownership. No one would dump toxic chemicals into their own water supply, but they might dump it on forty acres they own a hundred miles away. The displacement of responsibility has repeatedly overwhelmed any so-called incentive to do right by what we own.
Ownership has a terrible record of ecological destruction, far worse than any other way of organizing land. April: Henry George had a brilliant idea. Since land is not a commodity, no one should be able to charge other people for its use. People could benefit from the product of land. They could have the full value of the crops they harvest. But they would not benefit merely because they owned it.
I am not sure that a society can be dedicated to the accumulation of wealth and also to meeting human needs. I think that the second should be primary, while allowing for limited accumulation. Thanks for refusing to believe that things cannot be otherwise than the way they are. Good article. I spent most of my career as a professional land surveyor in the West greatly inspired by Thoreau and his career choice. I always thought the juxtaposition of the artificial enlightenment age public land survey system over the reality of the landscape at times amusing and other times upsetting.
Land is a special case and really can not be treated as a commodity, just as water can not be. Both are essential for life, all life, and as such are sacred in the real meaning of the word. Alan Fairairn as Bill. Zvone Hribar as Journalist 1. Ales Valic as Journalist 2. Fred M. Liss as Journalist 3. Franc Jakob as Journalist 4.
- Primary Sources.
- The Robber Child.
- Pesadilla! (Spanish Edition)!
- The Magic of Pineapples: A Brain Tingling Adventure Through Amazing Mathematics.
- No man's land.
Predrag Brestovac as Rambo. Tadej Troha as Young Bosnian Soldier. Primoz Petrovsek as Serbian Lieutenant at Barricade. Janez Habic as Serbian Soldier at Barricade. Matej Bizjak as Boy Accordionist. Marinko Prga as Serbian Soldier 1. Darjan Gorela as Serbian Soldier 2. Srecko Dzumber as Serbian Soldier 3. Uros Tatomir as Serbian Sergeant. Matej Recer as Bosnian Officer at Barricade. Matija Bulatovic as Bosnian Soldier at Barricade. Uros Furst as Bosnian Soldier at Barricade.
Feb 15, Rating: A. Feb 8, Rating: 3. Jan 9, Full Review…. Jun 17, Rating: B Full Review…. Sep 9, Full Review…. View All Critic Reviews Jul 26, Two Bosnians and a Serb are trapped in a trench during the war between Bosnia and Serbia. I didn't think that this actually happened or that it could have happened; from the beginning of the film, I knew that it was a metaphor. And as metaphors go, it's pretty good.
He waxes political when he includes the ineffective international community, suggesting that while other nations are well-intentioned, their efforts are burdened by bureaucracy. The characters are cut from bland cloth, essentially types rather than real people, but Tanovic assumes that in metaphors, we don't require nuance; he's likely right. Jim H Super Reviewer. Feb 06, A touching and eerie tale of a Bosnian and Serb who form an unlikely friendship stuck in the middle of no man's land with a guy who cannot move for fear of setting off a land mine beneath him.
Realilty hits far too vividly. John B Super Reviewer. Nov 11, Tragic war drama that is set in the midst of the Bosnian war. The film is a parable and marked the debut of Bosnian writer and director Danis Tanovi?. Two wounded soldiers, a Bosniak? The two soldiers confront each other in a trench, where they wait for dark. They trade insults and even find some common ground. Confounding the situation is another wounded Bosniak soldier Cera, portrayed by Filip ovagovi?
A land mine had been buried beneath him by the Bosnian Serbs; should he make any move, it would be fatal. Interesting plot. Andre T Super Reviewer. Feb 28, I'm pretty sure my favorite part was the random appearance of the villain from Ace Ventura 2. This is by no means a movie that I got into, but I can't deny that it's an interesting concept. It's just that some of the symbolism is way too obvious and it takes away from the overall story and message. One thing I really liked was the idea of broadening the scope ten fold about half way in.
There's all this intimacy and then suddenly it's like an entire UN fleet and a news team. The Reservoir Dogs atmosphere to the initial character interaction is what I would consider weak, mainly because all I was thinking about was Reservoir Dogs. Conner R Super Reviewer.
See all Audience reviews. Jane Livingstone: Neutrality does not exist in the face of murder. Doing nothing to stop it is, in fact, choosing.