It is a "common" misconception that land property is of two types, private or collective. Private property would be land whose rights are deeded to an individual or group for their exclusive use. Collective land would be that owned by a government or state or collective group. Many see this as the focal point of the Capitalist-Socialist debate but that train of thought is missing a major station.
The third and most basic form of property, that which is the origin of property, is common land.
The human race was born into common ownership of land. The land was here before us and cannot be produced by us. Who or what put it together, when and why varies with the nature of your religious or spiritual or scientific beliefs and although it can lend morality or observation to the subject, it predates this discussion.
Common ownership of land is the state of nature. Land of equal quality is available to all. There is no need for "disputes" or "rights" as there is plenty to go around and few humans. There would be no need to use "force" to confiscate land, as the "grass isn't greener" on the other side of the hill. There is plenty of green grass for everyone.
Even so, the "products" of one's labor on land might come into dispute. There is always the temptation to avoid "work" and take what is rightly other's by the nature of their labor. This has little to do with ownership of land, but with ownership of one's labor. One's labor and subsequent products are always one's own property.
Land disputes begin with the arrival of scarcity. Land is limited and once there is demand for a particular piece of land due to the lack of available comparable land, land ownership becomes an issue. At this point, force is necessary to maintain the right to particular land. Force to maintain land rights always evolves to the "collective" state. Individual effort, no matter how potent, is no match for the force of the collective, merely due to numbers.
It is this "collective" that maintains both private property and property of the "collective" or State. When there is land scarcity, there is no guaranteed property right without force.
A good example of the three types of property might be a garden spot. Common property would be the availability of land to be used as garden. There would be no restrictions on use. All individuals may use this land until the point that they are infringing on other's right to use the same. If scarcity occurs, the plot isn't big enough for all to use, then those that give up their right would receive compensation from those who use other's rights. This can be considered "rent", the value above free.
A collective example has the plot under state ownership. A commitee or group determines who can use the land and who can't. They also might restrict hours of use and what might be grown and who can eat the produce. They may decide to "rent" the property and would set the rents as they saw fit and determine who received the rent.
Or the plot could be under private ownership. The "owner" decides what he may want to do with the property. He may give or "rent" access or use of the property. The products of the land are his to use or sell as he sees fit.
Make no mistake about it, once land scarcity becomes a factor, force is necessary to maintain private property, to maintain state control of collective property and to maintain "order" and equal right in common property.
What determines whether a land system is free is not which type of system is dominant, but the manner in which the system was instituted. Since land is limited, the creation of any system that uses force to "institute" the system rather than maintain it is fraudulent.
Because of the vagaries of human nature, the collective or state ownership of land is functional only in theory or small groups. Religious orders have had success with collective ownership. Success can only occur when the "leaders" of the collective group consider only the good of all others when they act as decision makers. Small groups may be able to realize this goal, but it is fairly hopeless on any large scale, as natural self interest of the leaders tends to corrupt the system.
Private land rights, on the other hand, can be extremely workable if the origin of the rights stem from our original "common" ownership rather than a collective source. Private ownership that occurs due to collective force is simply the transfer of the "right of advantage" to whoever is selected by the collective or state to receive that advantage. If the land has been "socialized" and redistributed, the right to the property is based on fraud. Any "payment" for the land is compensation not for proper title but for the advantage provided by the State. The force necessary to maintain this advantage is also fraudulent.
Needless to say, our history is one of "collective" force used to keep or transfer "collective" property to those our government wished to advantage. The examples are virtually endless. Native Americans shared "common" ownership of land and we know what happened to them. Even omitting this great atrocity and hypocrisy, any attempt forward from that point was a "collective" effort.
The concept of homesteading is a pronouncement of the common right to property. Yet, our homestead policy was instead a State decree to stake a collective claim on the native's common land, along with collective land held by Mexico and the European powers. Where it failed, we used the ultimate form of collective land appropriation, armed conflict.
Common claim is simply that; the right to utilize land at will, as long as it does not inhibit another's right to use. Government's only legitimate role is insuring this is possible, not construing the guidelines and determining the methods to collectively accomplish this task. This, not solely the existence of private property itself, is the fundamental difference between a free and controlled society with regards to land.
As our nation progressed, collectivity gathered momentum. Railroad land grants eventually encompassed nearly 10% of the area of the continental United States. All remaining state resource lands, one third of the land mass, are not open "common" lands, but collective property of the State that is deeded or rented as the State sees fit. The force of the State has and is to this day used to create the majority of private, deeded property in America. Force was and is used to confiscate and appropriate rather than its only valid application, protection. It was not our common effort that surveyed and deeded our country but the collective effort and control of the State.
Private property based in collective policy, gives advantage to those who benefit from the State's charity. One profits from land at the "expense" of those without. The market price of this "advantage" is land rent and is directed to the "landlord", a fitting archaic term.
Private property based upon common right also entitles one to exclusive use of land. One profits not from the privilege of ownership but from the productive use of the property. The market price or land rent is determined by the highest amount those without title will pay. The land rent is paid as compensation to all who have released their common right to the parcel.
Private property is not the opposite of collective property. Private property is the result of scarcity, either artificially imposed by the collective or naturally caused by the limits of the earth. Collective property is always private property, owned by the State. The true opposite of forced collective property is common property right.
It is our mere physical presence on the land that endows our common right. Without that right, where do we stand? Literally? Do we not have a common right to air? If air somehow became scarce, would we allow a collective body, backed by force, to deny some and privilege others? Is that which is given to us to breathe so different from that which was given to stand and walk upon?
Private property is an excellent solution to the scarcity of land. We all have the common individual right to own or release our ownership in the aggregate finite supply of land, as we are able and see fit. The collective and those the collective would privilege have no greater right than any individual, no matter the twisted content of rules or laws that are implemented, no matter the show of force. The law of rent, by its nature, is in agreement. .
©2009 Gene DeNardo, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Last modified: Friday, November 6, 2009
The views expressed in this article are those of Gene DeNardo only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gene DeNardo is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Gene DeNardo of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Gene DeNardo |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2009-06-15 17:59:32
The common/collective distinction is an important one, that too many people overlook. Indeed, the very language -- the common use of terms like "public property" or "public domain" -- looks designed to blur it (or "blank [it] out," as Ayn Rand would say).
The important point which gets lost is that collective ownership -- property controlled by a government or "community" -- is as much in need of justification as private ownership. More so, really, since one easy justification of private appropriaion -- Locke's justification, that private appropriation is OK if there's as much and as good left over for anyone else, the justification for homesteading -- is lacking for collective appropriation.
However, I think you should add a fourth category: "unowned" property, or non-property. That would be different from common property -- common property would be (eg) land that anyone could use, provided their use didn't restrict anyone else's use, while non-property would be (eg) land that anyone could come along and turn into property of any kind.
Posted By: gene
Date: 2009-06-15 19:48:27
I agree, there is no real justification for "collective" property, unless somehow all volunter to give up common rights to a parcel for a specific purpose[governmental]. Even so, geolibertarians believe the land fee should still be paid by the governing agency, since the dividend goes to "all" not to the government.
And, what has happened repeatedly through history is "common" property has been seized by the collective and then redistributed. Which is the opposite process.
The fourth category you mention, do you see it as "possible" once scarcity has been approached?