If the people who own the land are excessively wealthy, and have no need for an income, as we can assume, they cannot be relied upon to provide labour or cheap food. The food in the orchard might be rotting in the trees but because we are landless, we have nothing of value to offer in exchange, not even our labour and there is no economic reason for the landowner to offer the fruit to the surrounding population...
For the ownership of the orchard and farmland to be legitimate requires the consent of the surrounding neighbours. If land is legitimately owned, it may be sold (and we can assume the domestic population will be indifferent to the nature of the (new) occupant) but to maintain ownership we must have the (continuing) consent of our neighbours. If we want to defend and own a piece of property, this amounts to a request made to our neighbours for that consent.
To some people it might not be acceptable (they might not agree to consent, to respecting the land property rights) that someone might own an excess of land. In this situation we withhold our consent. Since property rights rely on the consent of the surrounding population, there must be a mechanism with which we are able to control the (excessive) land acquisition of others. A Democratically chosen Land Value Ceiling would be a suitable such mechanism. This would formalise the nature of property rights which rely upon consent.
Friday, 21 May 2010
Without land we might starve
In spite of land property rights being (ideally) arranged on an informal basis, we nevertheless have an obligation not to occupy too great a proportion of the land. If we deny to others too great a proportion of the land, we are being aggressive and not good neighbours. Good neighbours allow others to have reasonable access to land.
To be denied access to land (for legitimate, not harmful reasons) requires justification, and this can only be that someone else has a greater, or at least equal requirement. To own an excess of land which violates the Lockean proviso requires justification. We are justified to own land if without it we will suffer and perish. We are poor if we do not have sufficient access to land.
Land is the solution to poverty.
We can be the cause of poverty if we own too much land and deprive others of (the use of) land. Owning land creates poverty in others. People would be in a lesser degree of poverty if those with an excess of land decided to give it away to their associates. There would be less poverty if people were more restrained with regard to their land ownership. A greater number of people would be wealthy if land is more evenly owned.
To be denied access to land (for legitimate, not harmful reasons) requires justification, and this can only be that someone else has a greater, or at least equal requirement. To own an excess of land which violates the Lockean proviso requires justification. We are justified to own land if without it we will suffer and perish. We are poor if we do not have sufficient access to land.
Land is the solution to poverty.
We can be the cause of poverty if we own too much land and deprive others of (the use of) land. Owning land creates poverty in others. People would be in a lesser degree of poverty if those with an excess of land decided to give it away to their associates. There would be less poverty if people were more restrained with regard to their land ownership. A greater number of people would be wealthy if land is more evenly owned.
There is no need for formal property rights
It is a crime to defend an excess of land, which violates the Lockean proviso. If we are guilty of this, we are guilty of common assault. Anyone that defends an excess of land is a criminal.
But we have no right to retaliate.
There is no need to have an excess of land, though. There is no need to have property rights and defend land, it can be arranged informally. Property rights should be arranged on an informal basis.
But we have no right to retaliate.
There is no need to have an excess of land, though. There is no need to have property rights and defend land, it can be arranged informally. Property rights should be arranged on an informal basis.
We are not entitled to defend an excess of land
If we have an excess of land then we have a Social obligation to allow others to work on the land and to grow their own crops, at no charge. We are not entitled to charge rent if we have an excess of land. We are also not entitled to prevent other people from using the land, if we have an excess. If we have violated the Lockean proviso we are not entitled to defend the land. It is a crime to defend land ownership which violates the Lockean proviso. We are only entitled to defend property if we have not violated the Lockean proviso. It is aggressive to defend an excess of land.
To use force against others is aggressive
If we are not protecting our physical bodies, then any use of force is aggressive, we have no right to defend (external) property, such as land or manufactured goods. In that sense then, there are no property rights.
We cannot violate the Lockean proviso because it is based on the false premise of external property rights. If we defend land, we are being aggressive. If we defend manufactured goods such as tools, factories and machines (the instruments of labour) then we are being aggressive. It is aggressive to defend (external, not of the body) property rights.
We cannot violate the Lockean proviso because it is based on the false premise of external property rights. If we defend land, we are being aggressive. If we defend manufactured goods such as tools, factories and machines (the instruments of labour) then we are being aggressive. It is aggressive to defend (external, not of the body) property rights.
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
We should not be able to own land forever
The solution to the land problem would be to make ownership never more than for a period of a few years, we cannot own land for all time, into eternity. Land can only be owned for a temporary period and we must impose limits on the length of time that land may be owned. Land should only be available to own for a temporary period, not forever.
We can only own land if we are paying rent to those who surround us
Property rights dictate that we are obligated to stay away from the property of other people, if they wish us to do so. It is reasonable for us to respect the property of someone that has been made by them, such as a machine, or clothing; the instruments of labour. To stay away from and respect claims to the subjects of labour is different.
The subjects of labour were existent long before anyone alive today was born. We might think that to have entered the world entitles us to access to land and so on. At least, to be denied access would require justification. We must be reciprocated if we are to respect property rights, if we respect ourselves. Everyone that owns exclusive access rights to the means of production (specifically subjects of labour) owes a payment of compensation to the rest of the population, in the form of rent. We are owed rent if we agree to stay off the land of others and so to, of course, must we pay rent for the same privilege.
We owe rent if we own property and we are owed rent equally, for staying off the land of others. If our property claims are less than the median then we are owed compensation. We cannot use land as a form of saving wealth.
If the State provides Government Services, this (property rights and the ownership of land) can be resolved by replacing other taxes with a Land Value Tax. In any case, even without this form of Socialism, it makes sense to have a central authority which would organise and oversee property claims and it is to this body which a land rent (payable on all claims to the subjects of labour) could be paid.
We owe a debt to our neighbours if we claim exclusive access to land. We have no right to own land unless we are paying rent to those we have deprived.
The subjects of labour were existent long before anyone alive today was born. We might think that to have entered the world entitles us to access to land and so on. At least, to be denied access would require justification. We must be reciprocated if we are to respect property rights, if we respect ourselves. Everyone that owns exclusive access rights to the means of production (specifically subjects of labour) owes a payment of compensation to the rest of the population, in the form of rent. We are owed rent if we agree to stay off the land of others and so to, of course, must we pay rent for the same privilege.
We owe rent if we own property and we are owed rent equally, for staying off the land of others. If our property claims are less than the median then we are owed compensation. We cannot use land as a form of saving wealth.
If the State provides Government Services, this (property rights and the ownership of land) can be resolved by replacing other taxes with a Land Value Tax. In any case, even without this form of Socialism, it makes sense to have a central authority which would organise and oversee property claims and it is to this body which a land rent (payable on all claims to the subjects of labour) could be paid.
We owe a debt to our neighbours if we claim exclusive access to land. We have no right to own land unless we are paying rent to those we have deprived.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
