Topic: Political Theory
Land: The Last Free Parcel The transition from "free" land to "valued" land and private property can expose the shortcomings of some of our basic assumptions.by Gene DeNardo
(libertarian)
Thursday, July 9, 2009
There is an ongoing debate about the nature of property "right". Do we have rights to property based in our "common" rights to the earth? The belief that what was given to all of us is entitled to all of us? Or, is the right to property based in the "free" nature of land that passes as scarcity enters the picture? Is property right built on the premise that no one has a right to land; therefore those that claim first are awarded ownership?
It may help to approach this problem from somewhere along the midpoint rather than the origin. If we take a theoretical example and analyze the possible outcomes, we might arrive at basis for that outcome.
Suppose we further the homestead principle to the last remaining free parcel. Homesteaders have mixed their labor with land, leaving as much and as good, until the point where one last remaining free parcel stands to be claimed. And, wishing to do the same are five potential homesteaders. What are the possible outcomes of this unequal situation?
Force, of course, is an option. One of the five may prove to be the strongest or could use an object of force, such as a large hardwood limb or nicely sized stones, and could force the others away from the land. Since he is outnumbered, he would need to continue to use force or engage the help of others to sustain his property claim. He might have to devote most of his time to protecting the land rather than actually utilizing it. It is hard to say if this would be considered "mixing his labor with the land" and if he would be fulfilling the requirements of homesteading and claiming property, but it certainly is an early example of the use of force to secure land.
A small group might also form within the larger group of five and do the same; apply force to hold the property. But, even if they were successful, they have now "divided" the land and do not possess as "good" and as "equal" a portion as the rest of the population. And, don't we wish to avoid force, if at all possible? Wouldn't the "freest" option also be one of least force and most agreement?
With this in mind, the five might decide to resolve the issue in a manner in which all would agree and consent to the solution. They decide to determine the "value" of the land that is no longer "free". They will each bid on the parcel and the highest bidder will obtain the rights to utilize the land. The others will give up their right, knowing that the final bid was higher than the value they believed the property was worth. They will let the market perform its work.
Of course, the high bid must "compensate" someone or it is meaningless. Yet, there is no "titled" owner of the land. Who would receive this compensation?
If you are of the school that believes that land is owned by no one until all land is claimed, then you have a logistics problem. With no titled owner, where would we direct the highest bid? Who has the right to collect the newly created value on the last remaining parcel?
On the other hand, if you believe private property rights are based on the "common" right of all of us to the earth, the solution is both simple and logical. The highest bid would be distributed to those who have given up their rights to the land; the losing bidders. They are compensated for being "excluded" from utilizing the land. The first market transaction involving land has been completed and the land has been "entitled" to the new owner in exchange for compensating the previous "common" owners.
There is no other logical place for this first payment to go, is there? The highest bidder certainly can't pay himself. Those already homesteading other parcels have "as good and as much" and have no need for the parcel or it would have already been claimed, so they have no secured rights to it. We have only those four who are "releasing" their equal right for a fair "market" value to the one who values the land the most. They are exchanging their rights to the land for the compensation.
A quick look at two future scenarios that are based on the "forceful" appropriation of this parcel may bring more insight. .
The last free parcel is taken by force and because of the threat from the four and the many more landless that inevitably will follow, the landowners bind together and form a collective to protect their exclusive rights to the land. They divide the labor of the landless, who must consent to survive since they are landless and cannot sustain themselves without the direction of the landed, and employ many in the protective services. Although constantly under threat, the superior force and power of the landed is usually successful in maintaining their property. They are able to collect "rent" from their holdings and eventually institute their protection into a social institution and collect taxes, for the most part from Labor and Capital, to sustain the considerable force necessary to maintain their property rights and order. There is constant tension and strife between the landed and the landless, but also a guaranteed income for the landed.
Or, the landless multiply and eventually gain some power. Their numbers become abundant and they realize that it is they who are applying the force that prevents them from utilizing the land. They scheme in dark rooms wearing bandannas or berets and choose the right time to turn this force against the landowners and seize control of the reins. Violence and bloodshed follow, and victory is claimed. The landowners are tossed out and the land mass is confiscated and redistributed in the manner they see fit. There is no need for tax, since funding comes directly from the product which is owned by those who collect the tax. In a sense, the entire economy is a tax! It is extremely difficult to re appropriate the land in a just manner and again, conflict and strife are common. Force is necessary not only to keep the former landowners off the land but the contain all who become unsatisfied with the new arrangement.
Either of these examples ring a bell?
Our third and peaceful option is the compensation to those who have relinquished their right from those who have attained exclusive use. Though it is obviously the option arrived at with the least force, all is not roses. Once land becomes scarce and divided, the temptation to end negotiations and coerce "unnatural" distribution of land value and rent is a part of human habit. What was the natural and peaceful solution to the last parcel of free land is not necessarily a pattern that will continue thru time.
There must be a "social compact" to direct the "rent" [return on value] to common ownership, to preserve the peaceful right of private property. But it is the most easily agreed upon social compact and the option requiring the least amount of force to uphold.
In a system in which the "landlord" benefits from the rent, our mere existence guarantees rent to the landlord. Those privileged to be born first are guaranteed rent from those disadvantaged by being born later! Who would have thought?
In a system where the rent is compensated to those who have released their common right to land, one pays rent when one decides to own and/or utilize property. Rent is received by all, including those who own land, since all have a common right to land. The exclusive right to private property is on equal footing with the right to relinquish the same.
It is said we can't escape "death, taxes or rent". Death is beyond control, but land rent can replace all confiscatory taxes. We can be free to produce and trade that which we create.
Viewed in this manner, the transition from homesteading free land to private property rights is straightforward and simple. It is only when reverting to the bad habits of our monarchial past that we must force the transition. The last free parcel or the first "valued" parcel of land is no longer a confusing "missing link" but a vital part of our future. By truthfully explaining that bridge that spans from free land to private property, we can arrive at a workable solution.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
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.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-07-09 20:06:57
Hi Gene, Your opening paragraph artificially limited the debate to only unacceptable options, for me. So, your attempt at analyzing a problem where you only consider unacceptable options didn't carry much weight with me.
You asked, "Do we have rights to property based in our "common" rights to the earth?"
"The belief that what was given to all of us is entitled to all of us?"
"Or, is the right to property based in the "free" nature of land that passes as scarcity enters the picture?"
"Is property right built on the premise that no one has a right to land; therefore those that claim first are awarded ownership?"
To which I answer, no, no, no, and no.
All of these options presume that a necessary starting point is unanimous agreement on what a right is and from whence it came. Obviously that is false because rights exist and the agreement doesn't.
I don't particularly care to talk about this right or that right; I find the distinctive labels irrelevant and intentionally emotion laden which smacks of manipulative tactics, or force, to me.
The way I see it, the notion of rights is an attempt at describing what is observed in the real world. The on-going debate you mentioned is an absurdity from which I generally take great amusement. It is just a word. How it is defined or explained makes absolutely no difference to the existence and exercising of rights. The action and consequence are the real things, not the word or its oft debated definition.
So, my notion of rights, all rights, stems from what they are, as observed in the real world. I don't try to justify them or define them or even insist they mean the same thing to any two individuals; that implies force, not liberty to me. They exist, they can be observed. Therefore they need no justification, no rationale, no basis in theory or philosophy and none of the foundational premise that you mentioned.
What do I observe? 1. For a right to exist it must be exercised. There are no potential rights or theoretical rights, there are only exercised rights and stories about them. 2. There are no common or natural rights apart from those that are exercised per #1 above. 3. Exercising a right results in consequences. Calling the action a right does not provide a Colgate invisible shield against potential negative consequences. 4. Therefore, rights become self limiting in that it is dangerous to exercise a right that others find objectionable. (Remember, beyond all this human created intellectual nonsense, our purpose as a species is to ensure our DNA survives all our individual and cultural mistakes.) 5. A Right must meet the following criteria to survive: a. It MUST be exercised. b. The consequences of exercising it must be survivable and then advantageous. c. There must be a means of preventing those who oppose your right or who would inflict dire consequences from doing so. They will exist (unless unacceptable force is used to eliminate them) so dealing with them must be addressed before any right can exist as a generally accepted notion in society.
In your example, I would say no one has a right to the parcel until someone claims it AND can survive the consequences and can repel any attempts to void that claim. They might do so by force, by agreement or by any means available to them. Only the fact that they can do so defines the right they claim. The means are not relevant.
It seems by your last paragraph that any "means" is relevant to attain and maintain a right [since means is irrelevant]? i would agree that this is the case in the world.
To me, force and agreement are really polar opposites. There is never any need for "agreement" when one possesses sufficient force, although parties could "agree" to use force. But in that particular case, it would most likely be in conjunction against a third party. Where there is consentual agreement there is usually the least force. Where there is the least force, there is the most freedom. These of course, are all ideas, but ideas rooted in observation.
you mentioned that "no one" has a right to the last parcel until someone claims it and can protect it, so you are in agreement with one of the premises of the first paragraph? this is historically true and the consequences have been repeated throughout history over and over. the right is won and lost, over and over, with winners and losers. There are countless examples occurring right now.
the principle I am refering to in the article is sometimes called the "third way". I think you would agree that the two basic "realistic" ways are symbolized in the two examples of "forceful" ownership. So, yes the article is "theoretical" as I mentioned, but hardly absurd, in fact, I think the conclusion is far more "logical" than the realistic conclusions history has shown us.
You are right in that observation is extremely important, but if we don't use our heads to attempt to better what we have observed, we will continually repeat our same mistakes.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-07-12 08:28:51
Hi Gene,
The premise you refer to as one I agree with is, "Is property right built on the premise that no one has a right to land; therefore those that claim first are awarded ownership?".
My disagreement with this is subtle but absolutely key to the way I view the notion of rights. In my previous comment I didn't elaborate on this subtilty for the sake of brevity...I do try... :-)
Here is the difference, as I see it.
You say: "No one has a right to the land until someone claims it;" ie. Claim = Right.
I say: The right does not exist until it is exercised. ie. Exercise Creates the Right.
To be more precise, I should have said that rights ONLY EXIST WHILE THEY ARE BEING EXERCISED.
You say: therefore those that claim first are awarded ownership?
I say: "awarding" has nothing to do with exercising a right. That implies a gift from others. Exercising a right is an autonomous action, not a transaction. No "others" are involved in exercising a right...certainly others can be involved, but the existence of the right doesn't depend on them, only on the entity conducting the exercise. This is why the means are irrelevant in the real world. It doesn't matter what any "others" might think about those means, only what the DO about it. The options are:
1. Oppose the means. . . but other means could be employed. In the real world nothing is pure or definite. For the entity exercising the right, only the ends matter so the means could be myriad.
2. Oppose the right. Use force to vanquish the right out of existence. No means are acceptable, it is the right itself that is objectionable.
3. Don't oppose the right or the means.
The problem I have with the kind of hypothetical "last parcel" scenario and with most philosophical analysis of these man-made notions like rights and love and honor and justice is the nearly unanimous tendency to boil the situation down into a snapshot, then make the argument against the snapshot version and assume that argument is relevant in the real world. I don't buy it. In the world we experience, a snapshot is impossible to experience apart from the dimension of time. Time is part of exercising a right. It isn't a moment, or a snapshot even if that moment or snapshot is captured during the process...the "Right" doesn't exist for all time based on the existence of one particular snapshot of it.
I know this comment is shallow. I wrote a much longer response but ... geesh, its the weekend and I have chores to do. :-) I'll post my longer response as an article based on the fallacy of reasoning from a snapshot.
I appreciate your attempt at "brevity" and I will try to do the same as I think these comment sections can get out of hand!
I have to say i really think, more than anything we are in agreement. I am just looking at it from a bit of a different angle.
To me, the most freedom lies in the realm of least force. So, to put it in your terms [I think anyway], what would be the situation that would require the least force and allow individuals to 'excercise' their right of private property?
And although you referred to the example as a snapshot, and in some sense it is, the overall view is more encompassing. Basically the paradox that exists in "allowing" some [those that were present] to choose to "exercise" the right and not allowing others [those that are not yet present] to exercise the same right without servitude to those who were already present and exercised the right[or I suppose their beneficiaries]. This premise for the right is in itself a "snapshot". Yet, we "allow" [or more accurately are forced] it to determine our basic principles concerning the right.
Although one must "exercise" a right, it is "outside" force that determines or "awards" the amount [or lack]of effort or force one might need in carrying out the performance of the right.
I appreciate your comments and look forward to your article.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
