That's What I Thought...
columnist: Gene DeNardo

Topic: Political Theory
Land Rights: Common and Collective.

---

Common thoughts on Land as Private Property.

---

by Gene DeNardo
(libertarian)
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

It is a "common" misconception that land property is of two types, private or collective. Private 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 origin of all land rights is based in "common" property; property shared and held in common by all. Both private and collective property has evolved from their common root.  

The human race was, is and will be born onto the land. Our land was here long before us and we had no part in its production. 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 a strong moral tone to the subject of land ownership, it unnecessarily complicates the distinction we wish to draw here; the obvious chasm between common and collective property.

As long as land is abundant, there is no physical need to dispute ownership of property, or even the establish any "right" to property. 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. Why fight over a parcel if freely available plots are near at hand and don’t require that output of energy that force requires obtaining land in use by others?

Even in this abundant state, the "products" of one’s labor on land might come into dispute. There is always the temptation for some 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 and its products. Land, however, can be caught "in the battle" since what we produce must necessarily originate from the resource.  

Disputes over land property itself, rather than products of labor, coincide with the presence of land scarcity. When land is no longer freely available, whether due to actual density of population or artificially induced scarcity, property ownership, the individual or collective right to land and its use, comes into question. If the inhabitants of the region experiencing this land scarcity cannot come to complete agreement on the use and distribution of the land, then they must resort to force to solve the issue.

Force becomes necessary to secure land right, when a "collective" group wishes to impose their method of land distribution on everyone. If everyone agreed to the same land policy, then force would be unnecessary. Force is used, whether private or state, to insure that those who disagree with the prevailing land policy, almost always those presently without ownership or soon to lose their land rights, will not impede the ownership of the collective who favor their own methods of land appropriation.  

Common property is the ownership of land by all. When land is held in common, all are permitted to use land to any extent, until they infringe on the right of others to do the same. When this occurs, scarcity becomes a factor. The use can no longer be completely free. Some consideration must be given to regulate the use and equally appropriate the land in and equal manner or to compensate those who give up their "basic" right of use to others.

When land leaves its free status, the concept of rent, compensation for the use of land, comes into play. The most logical collectors of that rent, under common ownership, would be those that consent to relinquish their right to common ownership or use. In this way, "private" or exclusive use of common land is possible without conflict. The land remains under parameters established by common ownership, but can be used freely as private property. When all owners are considered and compensated there is no loss of right, simply accommodation of changing conditions.

Without compensation, the landless are denied their common right to land use with little to show in return. If this occurs, the land is no longer in common ownership. The parameters for land appropriation and ownership are now under collective control; established and approved by a group, those who use, rather than everyone who has a common right. The collective group will need to impose its force on the remainder of the community for everyone to accept the guidelines the group desires. When force becomes strong enough, consent is not necessary.

While this establishes the parameters for collective control of the "right" to land and legitimizes exclusive or monopoly use without compensation for any loss of right, examples of actual collective ownership of land, as contrasted to the imposition of the collective system of ownership, are also common. Any land held by a group within the whole, such as state lands or corporate lands, would be collective ownership of private property. This group ownership of specific parcels itself does not determine whether the overall structure of land is communal or collective, that is determined by who pays and who receives compensation for exclusive use and whether the dominant land policy is consensual or forced. It simply places control of use of specific parcels in the hands of a group as opposed to individuals.

Collective property, as applied to specific parcels, often shares similar characteristics. A governing group or individual within the collective group determines who can use the land and who can’t. They also might restrict hours of use and to what use the land can be put to. Rather than use, they may decide to rent the property. This decision of course, is influenced by whether the parameters for land ownership are under communal or collective domain. Communal guidelines emphasize the "use" of the land, while collective restrictions favor the collection of rent by the landlord, rather than the utilization of the land by its owner.  

Because of the vagaries of human nature, the collective or state ownership of land is effective 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 have only the good of all others when they act as decision makers. Small groups may be able to realize this goal, but it is difficult on any large scale, as natural self interest of the leaders can propel them to make decisions that benefit themselves or their cronies and disadvantage the other members of the group.

Private land rights, on the other hand, can be extremely workable if the origin of the right to exclusive use stems from our original "common" ownership rather than collective force. Private ownership that occurs due to collective force is simply the transfer of privilege of ownership by title. Any "payment" for private land under collective policy is compensation not only for the actual utility of the land, but also for the advantage provided by the backing of collective force. It is adding insult to injury that even the basic cost of providing this advantage is shared by all, the landed and the landless, usually through a general tax. Even the cost of privilege that is awarded with collective methods of land appropriation has been socialized, subsidizing land ownership.  

So, private property, the exclusive right to land, can be based on either a collective system or common ownership. Under common consideration, everyone has a fundamental right to land. Privatizing land that is under common guidelines is simply a pragmatic approach to appropriation once scarcity occurs. Under common right, those that forego their right must receive value equal to what they have given up to avoid disadvantage. Exclusion from property must be compensated for and the free marketplace can be used to determine the value necessary. Whatever the landowner will pay for exclusive use is adequate compensation. The obvious difference from our present system is who receives the payment: those excluded rather than those excluding.

We are overly familiar with private property based on collective ownership. The rules in place are backed by the force of a group, land owners. The value given for land is payment for the enforcement of rules and laws that "entitle" property owners to extract compensation simply for holding title. This enforcement can be accomplished privately, in the manner of a kingdom or publicly through the government. The "unlanded" are aliens in their own country, paying homage to the landed through dues and use fees. Rules vary, but the basic idea remains the same, the group controls the destiny of the whole.  

The fundamental difference between the two structures of land ownership and use is the consent of those affected and the force that is necessary to maintain the collective system. Common right acknowledges the extreme difficulty that would be encountered in appropriating every parcel of land in equal quantity and value to every person. Common right instead allows the marketplace to determine the value that is given up by those who relinquish their right to land. In this way, although it may be impossible for every common owner to physically utilize their right to land, it is quite easy for them to receive just compensation for this condition.

The beauty of this system is that land will only draw rent if the underlying economics justify the enterprise. Common owners have no easy way of "monopolizing" land. Since common land is available to all, no land can be hoarded without a cost. Subsidized ownership has been removed from the market, and utilization dominates individual and group land use decisions.  

The collective system on the other hand, utilizes the force of the collective group to impose exclusive use on everyone. The collective group establishes that land ownership is not a right shared by all, but a privilege to be had by those able to "afford" membership. This private ownership also includes the right to whatever someone from outside the collective group will pay for the "use" right of the land. The collective system allows the landlord to collect the value that the tenant extracts from use of the land, simply due to title rather than actual physical actions that produce and extract the value.

The drawback to this system is that there is little cost to the exclusive owner for monopolizing land property. Holding land off the market simply due to expectations of greater future value is a wise decision when the cost for your action is paid by all. When the landlord receives the rent from the land whether he utilizes it himself or allows another to utilize it, there surely is no great motivation to get one’s hands dirty. Why not wait on the sidelines, collect the rent and cash in when the time is right? Collective force has diverted the cost of land ownership, rent, from common owners to those who establish membership in the collective group.     

Needless to say, history is filled with tales of "collective" force used to appropriate land. The examples are virtually endless. Native peoples the world over shared "common" ownership of land and worked the land since time immemorial. Their title to land has been consistently and is to this day laughed off as hearsay. There is a native owner for virtually every valuable parcel of real estate. Few were justly rewarded for their eviction. Most were forced to move or adapt to the new culture. Many of course, lost their lives.  

The concept of homesteading, prevalent in the "New World", is a pronouncement of the common right to property. Yet, homestead policy was instead a State decree to stake a collective claim on native land that was held in common, 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, if it actually has one, is insuring this is possible, not construing the guidelines and determining the methods to collectively accomplish this task. This, not the existence of private property itself, is the fundamental difference between a free and controlled society.  .  

As the United States developed and grew, collectivity gathered momentum. Railroad land grants eventually encompassed over 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 private 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 group or State 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 wishing to own the parcel 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.  

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. .  

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
6 thumbs so far

©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: Monday, November 30, 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.