The landless are owed compensation from those who have an excess of land.
If we have an excess of land it means we owe a payment to those who do not have any land of their own to compensate them for their compliance with the pertaining property claims. The poor are owed compensation by the rich for being denied access to land. We are owed compensation for being denied access to land.
It is legitimate to restrain the market when it comes to land, because we cannot own and trade land in isolation as everyone is involved in the arrangement. We all have an involvement in land. The Government is intervening in the land market when it provides protection at below the market price.
Friday 25 June 2010
Excessive land ownership is illegitimate if others have no land
It is not pragmatic to allow people to violate the Lockean proviso, by definition we do not make the best use of resources. It is not moral if we do not allow others to make use of resources that we are not making good use of ourselves. It is immoral to restrict others from the use of property that we do not need to have use of, not to share what we can afford to let others have use of. There is a lack of morality in not sharing.
It is immoral to own more land that we require.
It is immoral to own an excess of land, but this crime is not defined by aggression and the use of force. Being rich, and buying land pushes up the price of land, but land is limited in supply, unlike goods which can be reproduced by hand. Land would not be expensive if we are not permitted to own an excess. Land is expensive because the State removes the natural costs to owning land, which include protection. There is a problem if land is not available (to the poor) at a reasonable price.
Land will be expensive if some people are permitted to own a sizeable majority of the land, for investment purposes. To justify land ownership we must show that there are others who have a less legitimate claim, subject to the qualification that below a certain level no one is required to make such a justification. If we assume an abundance of resources, that there is enough food to go around, then we cannot claim that, without an excess of land we will starve. In this case there is no justification, instead we only make the point that no others have a (more) legitimate claim. But there are others with a more legitimate claim, by definition since we have violated the Lockean proviso.
If there are people who have a need for land then we have no right to own an excess of land.
It is immoral to own more land that we require.
It is immoral to own an excess of land, but this crime is not defined by aggression and the use of force. Being rich, and buying land pushes up the price of land, but land is limited in supply, unlike goods which can be reproduced by hand. Land would not be expensive if we are not permitted to own an excess. Land is expensive because the State removes the natural costs to owning land, which include protection. There is a problem if land is not available (to the poor) at a reasonable price.
Land will be expensive if some people are permitted to own a sizeable majority of the land, for investment purposes. To justify land ownership we must show that there are others who have a less legitimate claim, subject to the qualification that below a certain level no one is required to make such a justification. If we assume an abundance of resources, that there is enough food to go around, then we cannot claim that, without an excess of land we will starve. In this case there is no justification, instead we only make the point that no others have a (more) legitimate claim. But there are others with a more legitimate claim, by definition since we have violated the Lockean proviso.
If there are people who have a need for land then we have no right to own an excess of land.
To violate the Lockean proviso means we owe more land rent than we are owed
If we only own a small amount of land then we owe no debt to our neighbours because we have taken (are occupying) no more than is a reasonable amount. The reality that land is not owned, it is borrowed, is not relevant unless we are in occupation of a significant quantity.
No one owns land, we rent it from one another and so the more land that is owned, the greater the rent we owe to our neighbours. If we owe more than we are owed then we can expect to receive a request for payment. Someone with only a small amount of land is owed no less than they owe, so no charge is brought against them. Someone with much land owes a greater quantity of land rent than they are owed so they must pay the discrepancy. To own an excess of land means we owe more land rent than we are due, thus the remainder is due (to be paid) to our neighbours.
To own an excess of property means that we owe more land rent than we are owed.
No one owns land, we rent it from one another and so the more land that is owned, the greater the rent we owe to our neighbours. If we owe more than we are owed then we can expect to receive a request for payment. Someone with only a small amount of land is owed no less than they owe, so no charge is brought against them. Someone with much land owes a greater quantity of land rent than they are owed so they must pay the discrepancy. To own an excess of land means we owe more land rent than we are due, thus the remainder is due (to be paid) to our neighbours.
To own an excess of property means that we owe more land rent than we are owed.
We can own an excess of land if we pay rent to our neighbours
There is a natural cost to land ownership. If we want to protect land we must risk ourselves in protecting, defending it, when it is under threat. The Government removes these costs as there is no charge for land ownership once it has been claimed. This removes mechanisms for the owners to bear the costs to the rest of the population and indemnifies them from their responsibilities, which include being sympathetic to the material needs of our neighbours.
Under a Libertarian system of Government there should be a mechanism to challenge property claims, and to compensate those who have insufficient land. The Government should not protect the land of someone who owns an excess, in violation of the Lockean proviso.
Landowners should be encouraged to show that their ownership is not forever and that they will give up ownership after a limited time, so that it more closely relates to a rental arrangement than outright ownership.
It is not enough for a landowner to have been given permission from the seller, to acquire a property if they own too much. No one wants to be poor and if we deny to others access to our land then we make them less rich than ourselves. It is unfair for the Government to remove the natural costs, and compensations that would exist without (merely) legal recognition of property. If we own land we normally pay compensation of some kind to our neighbours, often reciprocated, but if we can own land without making this payment then the State has given us something for free and taken from others.
Granting property rights without explicit consent from the rest of the population is a form of taxation. Property is theft if we own an excess, unless our neighbours are properly compensated as we have stolen the compensating rental payments which are due to everyone. We can only legitimately own property if we have paid enough to our neighbours.
We must all pay rent on our property.
To share and make the best use of property, since we did not manufacture it, we pay rent for exclusive access. We have a contract with others to stay away from our land, which can be organised centrally. If someone has violated the Lockean proviso, with their property ownership then it is legitimate for the surrounding population to charge them a fee. We can own an excess of (unmade) land if we have paid a fee to others.
Under a Libertarian system of Government there should be a mechanism to challenge property claims, and to compensate those who have insufficient land. The Government should not protect the land of someone who owns an excess, in violation of the Lockean proviso.
Landowners should be encouraged to show that their ownership is not forever and that they will give up ownership after a limited time, so that it more closely relates to a rental arrangement than outright ownership.
It is not enough for a landowner to have been given permission from the seller, to acquire a property if they own too much. No one wants to be poor and if we deny to others access to our land then we make them less rich than ourselves. It is unfair for the Government to remove the natural costs, and compensations that would exist without (merely) legal recognition of property. If we own land we normally pay compensation of some kind to our neighbours, often reciprocated, but if we can own land without making this payment then the State has given us something for free and taken from others.
Granting property rights without explicit consent from the rest of the population is a form of taxation. Property is theft if we own an excess, unless our neighbours are properly compensated as we have stolen the compensating rental payments which are due to everyone. We can only legitimately own property if we have paid enough to our neighbours.
We must all pay rent on our property.
To share and make the best use of property, since we did not manufacture it, we pay rent for exclusive access. We have a contract with others to stay away from our land, which can be organised centrally. If someone has violated the Lockean proviso, with their property ownership then it is legitimate for the surrounding population to charge them a fee. We can own an excess of (unmade) land if we have paid a fee to others.
Wednesday 2 June 2010
It will be more peaceful if people have access to land
We are a moral species.
People behave in a moral manner when they can. If resources are scarce people will take what they need from the environment, even if that is the life of another animal, but if not, and resources are plentiful, generally people (and animals) will leave each other alone. For one thing, it is costly to be aggressive since there could be retaliation, if not directly from the victim perhaps from colleagues.
Given that, to make a more pleasant environment we should make sure individuals have access to resources.
People behave in a moral manner when they can. If resources are scarce people will take what they need from the environment, even if that is the life of another animal, but if not, and resources are plentiful, generally people (and animals) will leave each other alone. For one thing, it is costly to be aggressive since there could be retaliation, if not directly from the victim perhaps from colleagues.
Given that, to make a more pleasant environment we should make sure individuals have access to resources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
