I won't pretend like I'm an expert. However, I will say that in our supposedly democratic land, a useful heuristic would be just to vote. If the land was not owned by anyone and this could be magically enforced, then the people would simply vote for its use, right?
As things come up people would just revote. Since no one owns the land there wouldn't be any conflict of interest. You may point out that those who originally voted may be conflicted, but I disagree: any proposition that would benefit the majority would clearly win. Any proposition that doesn't would necessarily be struck down.
This kind of system has its own problems, though. Long term sustainability is one, requisites for voting is another. But these problems I think are separate.
As things come up people would just revote. Since no one owns the land there wouldn't be any conflict of interest. You may point out that those who originally voted may be conflicted, but I disagree: any proposition that would benefit the majority would clearly win. Any proposition that doesn't would necessarily be struck down.
This kind of system has its own problems, though. Long term sustainability is one, requisites for voting is another. But these problems I think are separate.