I agree with you that the social structures we've set up have largely forced the hands of the indigenous people who want to keep their lands in their families in perpetuity to sell. How can we actually make sure these lands stay within families forever possible though? To do something like disallowing the sale of these lands outside of their communities doesn't seem particularly ethical either. In this case, that could mean that some of the landowners who might be hard pressed for money might have a pressing need to sell, so how could we forbid that? Just like preserving our diverse cultures, I totally understand the value proposition, but how can you ethically force cultural preservation? Not a perfect analog, but I'm curious how you think a more equitable system might work here.
Isn't that the exact problems that Indian reservations were set up to solve? A kind of community-administered perpetual land grant, basically.
It seems that – some problems within the tribal administrations non-withstanding – the external legal relationships are solved pretty well within that framework.
I was talking about today's reservations as a legal vehicle to allow perpetual group ownership & administration of land, so as to preserve it for a culture. I may have forgotten the part where, once the structure is set up, owners would voluntarily add their property if their shared this objective.
Just accept that the property which you buy is provided with agreements granted to neighbours, and that by buying the property, you inherit the duty to said neighbours.
And then, don't fill a lawsuit to put people out of their homes in order to void these duties.
