What is land? How could every piece of property be private?


Evan

Recommended Posts

I was talking with a friend about Capitalism yesterday, I am very for it and they seem to have a mixed liberal perspective on the matter. She said, "not every spot of land can be private," which really got me thinking. I don't know enough about how land is originally acquired at the start of a country, and what a country really is. In a Capitalistic society, what would happen to every mountain or stream that simply is not owned by anyone? Could you "settle" there and claim it as your own? I am very confused on this matter and would appreciate any knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every spot could be private. But not ever person could be an owner. There would have to be a lot of renting or leasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey BaalChatzaf, I understand that every spot should be private, but how could it be? Could every spot of land in existence be privately owned? What happens to the land that simply no one owns? Could I walk on and claim it all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to distinct plots of land, there is rarely a compelling argument for public space. Many government agengies (including Office of White House, DOD, DOJ, etc.) have seen the light and, instead of operating exclusively from "public" buildings, now rent office space from private landowners. It's cheaper, more efficient, and the quality of the facilities tends to be much higher.

Roads are a trickier issue because they involve exponentially larger numbers of land owners and the transaction costs become astronomical. There are private roads and highways out there - I drove on one recently in Virginia - but since these are the rare exception, it's no wonder that progressives *love* to bring up public roads at every opportunity in defense of statist expansion.

I'm sympathetic to minarchist ideas because I concede it's vastly easier for a central authority to establish roads than private actors, and it's probably worth the liberty cost in that specific case. I value individualism more highly than most, but it's not an absolute for me. The real issue in the "roads" debate is whether the discussion is worth having in the first place when there are so many dubious areas of government involvement that should be prioritized first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey BaalChatzaf, I understand that every spot should be private, but how could it be? Could every spot of land in existence be privately owned? What happens to the land that simply no one owns? Could I walk on and claim it all?

Actually you could. But bring men and arms to defend your claim against nay-sayers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem here stated is there is no problem--that is, Utopian thinking will led you to conundrums every time on the practical level. This perfect-world crap leads inexorably to libertarian anarchism which is just more of impractical thinking not real life being and living. The protection of individual rights as a political-philosophical ideal means moving to more and more freedom, not slam-dunking liberty through the hoop. If this principle is generally embraced, the feeling of freedom will mean living in freedom long before you get any where near your imagined Utopia. Thus the real dealable problems will reveal themselves the closer you get to them and the real solutions too. We will never get to how can all property or land be private. In our lifetimes we will not have to think about building condos on the cliffs of the Grand Canyon unless we don't have anything else to do with our time than to fantasize.

Tyranny__________dictatorship_________mixed economy*___________freedom__________Utopia

--Brant

*we are here and going left <------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan, the dominant capitalist theory of property is homesteading--first use, first own.

There is a crucial premise that determines whether or not one is in favor of property rights (all property is private), and that is the answer to the question: Does the material of the world belong to everyone or no-one?

If we all have an equal claim to the material, then nobody can really own anything. They can own the form, but they are only borrowing the material--and since everyone has an equal claim, democracy would naturally be the only proper system for allocating resources.

I believe that nobody has a claim to any material. If we did, and could establish a democratic system which accounted for every grain of sand, nobody would ever be able to do anything with any of it... and we'd all die. When you transform material in any way that can be recognized as man-made, you claim ownership of the form and substance until you transfer or forfeit ownership.

The reason absolute property rights are generally ideal (only when they conflict with one's property in oneself are they not), especially economically, is because it allows people to plan and therefor put off momentary satisfaction for future profits, as well as making disputes much easier to resolve as not as many people can have a say (in your house, you make the rules--again, as long as you do not violate a person's self-ownership).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking with a friend about Capitalism yesterday, I am very for it and they seem to have a mixed liberal perspective on the matter. She said, "not every spot of land can be private," which really got me thinking. I don't know enough about how land is originally acquired at the start of a country, and what a country really is. In a Capitalistic society, what would happen to every mountain or stream that simply is not owned by anyone? Could you "settle" there and claim it as your own? I am very confused on this matter and would appreciate any knowledge.

Ayn Rand said that in the capitalist society all property should be privately owned. She never said that every spot of land should be private. According to the Oxford Dictionary " Property is a thing or things owned". Some pieces of land or rivers are not owned by anybody and therefore they are not property. Oceans and seas for example are not property. But if somebody will start to exploit part of the sea, it will become a property, own by the person who does that. What Ayn Rand objected to is a notion of public property. She called it a collectivist fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking with a friend about Capitalism yesterday, I am very for it and they seem to have a mixed liberal perspective on the matter. She said, "not every spot of land can be private," which really got me thinking. I don't know enough about how land is originally acquired at the start of a country, and what a country really is. In a Capitalistic society, what would happen to every mountain or stream that simply is not owned by anyone? Could you "settle" there and claim it as your own? I am very confused on this matter and would appreciate any knowledge.

Ayn Rand said that in the capitalist society all property should be privately owned. She never said that every spot of land should be private. According to the Oxford Dictionary " Property is a thing or things owned". Some pieces of land or rivers are not owned by anybody and therefore they are not property. Oceans and seas for example are not property. But if somebody will start to exploit part of the sea, it will become a property, own by the person who does that. What Ayn Rand objected to is a notion of public property. She called it a collectivist fiction.

Rivers and Oceans by their very nature are in the Commons of Nature. How can a River be fenced other than by blocking it. Also peeing in a River is an act of aggression against the downstream folk. Large bodies of water must be left in Commons else wars will erupt over them.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Rivers and Oceans by their very nature are in the Commons of Nature. How can a River be fenced other than by blocking it. Also peeing in a River is an act of aggression against the downstream folk. Large bodies of water must be left in Commons else wars will erupt over them"



Nevertheless they can become a property owned by certain people. Rivers, seas and oceans could be equally divided between the the total population of the earth and everybody could own a piece of it, which is quite a large piece. If anybody wants to exploit a certain area he could by it from the owner or rent it. In this way the exploitation of the seas will increase the global wealth tremendously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Rivers and Oceans by their very nature are in the Commons of Nature. How can a River be fenced other than by blocking it. Also peeing in a River is an act of aggression against the downstream folk. Large bodies of water must be left in Commons else wars will erupt over them"

Nevertheless they can become a property owned by certain people. Rivers, seas and oceans could be equally divided between the the total population of the earth and everybody could own a piece of it, which is quite a large piece. If anybody wants to exploit a certain area he could by it from the owner or rent it. In this way the exploitation of the seas will increase the global wealth tremendously.

The "high seas" are traditionally held to be in the common, at least those portions of the seas which are so far from land they cannot be restricted or closed to traffic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the OP's questioning of the foundation of real estate.

I've thought a lot about this, too. I don't know how to derive landed property from a principle in a manner that works in raw nature, so I just look at what humans have done ever since the beginning of recorded history and start there.

Landed property has always started out with someone staking a claim--either on unclaimed land or already claimed land. This someone can be a person or a group--most often a group.

Then the person sets up defenses and/or defends it against trespassers and usurpers, usually with violence.

From that point on, that is from the claim and buttressing defenses, the productive activities start, a charter of some kind is drawn up laying out the conditions the claimstaker decides on (basically by decree) and the rules for passing the land, or part of it, on to others, and often a government is instituted.

Then the claimstaker and people who disagree with the claimstake fight and kill each other over it. Or their heirs. Or they all live in peace for distinct stretches of time, all of which seem to have a beginning, middle and end.

Once the claimstaker's structure is taken over by another claimstaker, usually by force, all former property rights go out the window unless the new claimstaker agrees to grant them.

That's not as it should be, maybe, but that's what I have seen so far.

In other words, from the best I can see in practice, the mission of a free society is not to start out according to principles of individual liberty, property, etc., but to establish those principles on top of that ugly reality and relegate that reality to the past.

I wish it were different, but I don't see how.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, there is something about (the)Earth that is kinda special, figuring out how to live on it rationally is a sticky wicket.

It's certainly a challenge worth taking on. We do, however, enjoy an edge... as the basic nature of this country allows the rational to live good lives even among the irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At some point it has to come to integrating the nonAristotilian premise of the epistemologic quality of 'landed property', I mean there is something to the fact that prior to Rand property has pretty much been described in law and understood as operating in fundamentally two dimensions, why is this ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Rivers and Oceans by their very nature are in the Commons of Nature. How can a River be fenced other than by blocking it. Also peeing in a River is an act of aggression against the downstream folk. Large bodies of water must be left in Commons else wars will erupt over them"

Nevertheless they can become a property owned by certain people. Rivers, seas and oceans could be equally divided between the the total population of the earth and everybody could own a piece of it, which is quite a large piece. If anybody wants to exploit a certain area he could by it from the owner or rent it. In this way the exploitation of the seas will increase the global wealth tremendously.

The "high seas" are traditionally held to be in the common, at least those portions of the seas which are so far from land they cannot be restricted or closed to traffic.

There is no need of restriction or closure. The user will simply pay to the owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Rivers and Oceans by their very nature are in the Commons of Nature. How can a River be fenced other than by blocking it. Also peeing in a River is an act of aggression against the downstream folk. Large bodies of water must be left in Commons else wars will erupt over them"

Nevertheless they can become a property owned by certain people. Rivers, seas and oceans could be equally divided between the the total population of the earth and everybody could own a piece of it, which is quite a large piece. If anybody wants to exploit a certain area he could by it from the owner or rent it. In this way the exploitation of the seas will increase the global wealth tremendously.

The "high seas" are traditionally held to be in the common, at least those portions of the seas which are so far from land they cannot be restricted or closed to traffic.

There is no need of restriction or closure. The user will simply pay to the owner.

Only if the user recognizes the claimed owner's right of property. In the real world, people use the "high seas" without payment. No one could defend a claim to the "high seas" by any amount of force he could afford. And any attempt to do so, would soon lead to war. So custom prevails. The "high seas" are held to be common for all to use in commerce and travel. It is only during wars that the use of the "high seas" are interdicted by force. And this is a very expensive thing to do.

Just about any resource that cannot be practically boxed, fenced or enclosed is consider in natural common. For example the air we breath. No one claims to own. It is only in air tight environments that air becomes property.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much here is right and much else is wrong or incomplete. Ba'al is correct that generally, to be be "property" you must be able in enclose it in some way. The air in a shopping mall is legally different than the air at Yosemite. Of course, as MSK's post indicates, an Objective understanding - lacking now - might define Yosemite as a large shopping mall.

While it is true that "every piece of land" could be owned, the historic and traditional nature of law makes it difficult to get past the "surface" problems. By common real estate law,your property goes down to the center of the Earth and up infinitely into space. That, of course, is ridiculous.

However, as it is - in our collectivized mixed-premise society - the State of Michigan now claims to own all the mineral rights to all property except those previously defined by contract. Basically, the State of Michigan claims to own the entire Mitten and Upper Peninsula down to the center of the Earth.

But, in an Objectivist society, you could own a slice - sector of a pseudo lune? - of the underground. Similarly, you could own an "air corridor."

In her essay, "Property Status of the Airwaves" Rand began the process of thinking this through. Even in her own time, however, "time slicing" made it possible to own not just a frequency, but subsets of it. Broadcast and reception "choppers" could be made from metal foil and a motor. Now, we do it with software.

The problems with "land" (so-called) only reflect deeper and broader problems with "property" as a concept.

Long ago, in The Market for Liberty, the Tannehills attempted to answer the question, "What happens if two people land on opposite sides of an asteroid and later discover each other?" It's been known to happen, though not yet on asteroids. Think of patent law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the great answers everyone! I have been reading and thinking about this and think I have some answers, at least for myself. I started out by questioning the role of the government in establishing land, and found that basis valid as long as its purpose was the protection of private property. But how would it be acquired? The best example I could find were the Homestead Acts of 1862, in which the government have 160-acre pieces of land to people at very little cost, and the property became theirs when they maintained it and used it as means of production.

But what about land that no one owns, like the Great Lakes in Michigan? The answer to me is now simple. How do you stop people from polluting, littering, dumping toxic materials anywhere they please? Private property; you have someone care about that land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you stop people from polluting, littering, dumping toxic materials anywhere they please? Private property; you have someone care about that land.

Exactly. If people are allowed to claim property by putting it to use, the only place anyone could pollute would be areas that nobody has any interest in (which would likely not exist if we were actually allowed to put any unowned land to use).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you stop people from polluting, littering, dumping toxic materials anywhere they please? Private property; you have someone care about that land.

Exactly. If people are allowed to claim property by putting it to use, the only place anyone could pollute would be areas that nobody has any interest in (which would likely not exist if we were actually allowed to put any unowned land to use).

There is a utility for having a place to dump junk, waste, shit and other unwanted, disliked stuff. It sound like a good business to purchase some land and make it a designated legal dump.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a utility for having a place to dump junk, waste, shit and other unwanted, disliked stuff. It sound like a good business to purchase some land and make it a designated legal dump.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If there was unowned land that you started dumping stuff on, it cannot become owned simply by arbitrarily claiming it.

A dump should not be owned unless there is some man-made quality which makes it more effective at holding waste than the land as it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dglgmut, on 02 Jun 2013 - 8:12 PM, said:

BaalChatzaf, on 02 Jun 2013 - 1:42 PM, said:

There is a utility for having a place to dump junk, waste, shit and other unwanted, disliked stuff. It sound like a good business to purchase some land and make it a designated legal dump.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If there was unowned land that you started dumping stuff on, it cannot become owned simply by arbitrarily claiming it.

A dump should not be owned unless there is some man-made quality which makes it more effective at holding waste than the land as it was.

One could have good roads to deliver the stuff, and clay lined pits to keep nasty toxics from the groundwater.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This talk about dumps reminds me of Idiocracy... :wink:

47b7eb6df662.jpg

It's a funny movie about the dystopian future where no one knows what to do with trash so they just keep piling it up into mountains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now