Our ownership of land (in fact, of all property) is contingent on the compliance of the rest of the population. If they agree to respect our land claims, then we can have exclusive use of the land. In exchange for staying off the land of others, we are repaid by having our land claims tolerated.
If we want to equalise the distribution of land then we can impose a ceiling on the ownership of land. It would be fairer (the land would be used more efficiently, in terms of generating wealth and happiness) to restrict wealthy landowners from owning an excess of land. The Government is not a neutral player in this, a laisser faire approach will result in land property (ownership) being dominated by a small number of people, since it is possible to rent excess land at more than the cost of living. A free market approach to land will result in land inequality, and inefficient use of the land.
The Government should desist from defending an excess of land to improve effective use of the land. If the Government only recognises (no more than) a reasonable quantity of land for each person then this will be better. If someone has more than a reasonable amount they should be invited to sell some of their land, or risk their ownership to be in dispute. We should be forced to sell some of our land, if we have too much, to improve land use.
Saturday, 10 July 2010
Thursday, 8 July 2010
A limit on land ownership would prevent land inequality
A Lockean limit would prevent people from hoarding an excess of land. Land inequality can be prevented by imposing an upper limit to land acquisition, this would limit the amount of land that an individual may own.
Difficulties can result when people are hoarding an excess of land
If we are landless, and we want to eat then, practically speaking, we are a slave to those who have land. We must do whatever they want, as a group, because otherwise we will starve. Assuming we do not want to starve, then the landless are a slave class to the landed. The landless are owned by the landed. Being able to sell access to land takes no effort. Since this demonstrates the owner has an excess and land is a fundamental property then the ability to lease land reflects a deeper injustice.
If we lease property to improve already wealthy lives then there is not problem with this, but if we lease property, particularly land, to those who without it will starve, this represents an inequality. If people are prevented from hoarding an excess of land then this problem will not exist.
If we lease property to improve already wealthy lives then there is not problem with this, but if we lease property, particularly land, to those who without it will starve, this represents an inequality. If people are prevented from hoarding an excess of land then this problem will not exist.
We do not own ourselves if we are in fear of a landowner
We do not own ourselves if we do not own a sufficient piece of land.
If we have no land, then to eat we must either pay rent for a field which (we are able) to farm, or we must sell our labour to someone who has food, which too must be derived from land. Our hunger is typically a problem that can be resolved by nature, but if we have no access to land then this becomes a negotiation with another individual.
To facilitate the freedom of the people, we must, where possible, try to ensure that everyone has sufficient and reasonable access to the land. We are not free if we have been prevented from using land by another person. All land claims restrict the freedoms of other people, this is legitimate when done in moderation but not when we are being too aggressive, threatening.
If we have no land, then to eat we must either pay rent for a field which (we are able) to farm, or we must sell our labour to someone who has food, which too must be derived from land. Our hunger is typically a problem that can be resolved by nature, but if we have no access to land then this becomes a negotiation with another individual.
To facilitate the freedom of the people, we must, where possible, try to ensure that everyone has sufficient and reasonable access to the land. We are not free if we have been prevented from using land by another person. All land claims restrict the freedoms of other people, this is legitimate when done in moderation but not when we are being too aggressive, threatening.
The validity of land ownership is contingent on the opinion of our neighbours
To know whether someone is trespassing we can only make reference to the opinion of the community. If the majority are of the view that a person is occupying land illegitimately claimed, then we can say that the person is trespassing. We are not trespassing if most people do not object to our having (exclusive) use of the land.
Since, if we have taken only a small quantity of land then we have, very likely, left enough to our neighbours, then we can suppose that most people will not object and we can own land when we have only a small proportion. We might face more strong disagreement if we have taken an excessive quantity of land. Our land claims will be less popular if we have taken an excess, and in this case, due to its unpopularity we will cease to be the legitimate owner of the land.
If we have not left enough (and as good) land to others then we have violated the Lockean proviso and we have more land that we are entitled to claim according to the Lockean limit. Land is not owned beyond the Lockean limit because this will cease to be with the consensus of the group. They will then be trespassing on the land and it will be perfectly legitimate (under normal practices of arranging property rights) to remove them.
Land ownership will be unpopular beyond the Lockean limit and this will mean that the land ceases to be owned.
Since, if we have taken only a small quantity of land then we have, very likely, left enough to our neighbours, then we can suppose that most people will not object and we can own land when we have only a small proportion. We might face more strong disagreement if we have taken an excessive quantity of land. Our land claims will be less popular if we have taken an excess, and in this case, due to its unpopularity we will cease to be the legitimate owner of the land.
If we have not left enough (and as good) land to others then we have violated the Lockean proviso and we have more land that we are entitled to claim according to the Lockean limit. Land is not owned beyond the Lockean limit because this will cease to be with the consensus of the group. They will then be trespassing on the land and it will be perfectly legitimate (under normal practices of arranging property rights) to remove them.
Land ownership will be unpopular beyond the Lockean limit and this will mean that the land ceases to be owned.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
We have a right to own an excess of land only if there are no poor people
We have no right to own an excess of land if others are landless.
For property rights to be justified they must be pragmatic for the group, as property rights are concerned with the welfare of the group. If some people have no land, then clearly it is best for the group that they should be able to get land, since we assume the people are not criminal and in prison. If it is pragmatic for the poor to get land, then it must too be pragmatic for the rich to give up their land and anything else violates pragmatism and is not justified.
The poor have a right to demand that the rich give away a portion of their land, and that land wealth is capped. If there are poor people, without land then we have no right to own an excess of land. We only have a right to own an excess of land if there are no people who have no land of their own. If there are poor people we have no right to an excess of land.
For property rights to be justified they must be pragmatic for the group, as property rights are concerned with the welfare of the group. If some people have no land, then clearly it is best for the group that they should be able to get land, since we assume the people are not criminal and in prison. If it is pragmatic for the poor to get land, then it must too be pragmatic for the rich to give up their land and anything else violates pragmatism and is not justified.
The poor have a right to demand that the rich give away a portion of their land, and that land wealth is capped. If there are poor people, without land then we have no right to own an excess of land. We only have a right to own an excess of land if there are no people who have no land of their own. If there are poor people we have no right to an excess of land.
Land rights are unstable and not legitimate unless there is a mechanism to reduce inequality
Property rights are utilitarian in the sense that without them the community would suffer. It is beneficial for people to be able to retain the output of the labour. Even though we do not make land it is still beneficial to allocate land rights so that land can be farmed and occupied without fear of being removed. This allows people to invest in the locality, whether in the construction of buildings or the preparation of food crops.
The utility of land rights is threatened when land ownership becomes too unequal. The value in allocating land to each individual can be measured by the marginal advantage of yet more land. If someone has not much land, then a little extra would be very welcome, but someone with an excess of land (as defined by the Lockean proviso) would derive no great advantage from having more. Each unit of land is more important to the one with a small quantity. If land ceases to be above a certain level of personal importance to the owner, (per unit of incremental increase) measured objectively, not idiosyncratically, relative to the remainder of the population then this land is not legitimately owned.
We do not own the (entirety of the) land if extra land is of little personal value, measured objectively, not subjectively. We have no right to own significantly more land than our neighbours, for whatever reason, if they can be said to not have sufficient land of their own.
The utility of land rights is threatened when land ownership becomes too unequal. The value in allocating land to each individual can be measured by the marginal advantage of yet more land. If someone has not much land, then a little extra would be very welcome, but someone with an excess of land (as defined by the Lockean proviso) would derive no great advantage from having more. Each unit of land is more important to the one with a small quantity. If land ceases to be above a certain level of personal importance to the owner, (per unit of incremental increase) measured objectively, not idiosyncratically, relative to the remainder of the population then this land is not legitimately owned.
We do not own the (entirety of the) land if extra land is of little personal value, measured objectively, not subjectively. We have no right to own significantly more land than our neighbours, for whatever reason, if they can be said to not have sufficient land of their own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
