Some Questions About Private Property

[DarkReaver13]

Okay I've been having some thoughts..

In a laissez-faire society there is no "public property" right?

If everywhere is private property, then do not the owners of these properties have the right to enforce any laws they wish within their property? Wouldn't this create a tangle of properties each with its own set of laws? If there is no publicly owned area, then where would law-enforcement have jurdistiction?

What about roads, would the same apply here? Would there be different speed limits and safety regulations for each stretch of road owned by a different person? What if one person bought a major highway and decided to charge extortionate prices for it's use? Surely this would cause problems?

Also, upon the selling of all public roads and services, the government would get all the money for them, even though they don't legitimately own the property. Isn't this bad?

Theoretically everything adds up, but practically I can see problems..

Edited May 4, 2005 by GreedyCapitalist

[y_feldblum]

There would be government property, insofar as the government uses money to it donated or which it had otherwise collected (eg, via long-term contract fees) to purchase land, buildings, equipment, etc. There would be absolutely no confusion about that property being "public": it's not. However, government must have constitutional authorization to purchase that property in the first place.

A laissez-faire government would not own public roads. So much "safety" regulations and "extortionate" prices.

Regarding your last comment, if theory and practice do not measure up to each other, then somewhere you have made a mistake.

[DarkReaver13]

There would be government property, insofar as the government uses money to it donated or which it had otherwise collected (eg, via long-term contract fees) to purchase land, buildings, equipment, etc. There would be absolutely no confusion about that property being "public": it's not. However, government must have constitutional authorization to purchase that property in the first place.

So there would be private property and government property but no "public" property? Who would own footpaths and roads?

A laissez-faire government would not own public roads. So much "safety" regulations and "extortionate" prices.

Yeah, I said if a person owned roads. So who would own public roads? If no-one owns them, then who will pay for their maintainence. If they're privately owned, then my original question still needs answering.

Regarding your last comment, if theory and practice do not measure up to each other, then somewhere you have made a mistake.

Hence why I'm trying to unite the two in my mind.

[Eric Mathis]

Okay I've been having some thoughts..

In a laissez-faire society there is no "public property" right?

Ayn Rand wrote, “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” (“What Is Capitalism”)

If everywhere is private property, then do not the owners of these properties have the right to enforce any laws they wish within their property? Wouldn't this create a tangle of properties each with its own set of laws? If there is no publicly owned area, then where would law-enforcement have jurdistiction?

Since a capitalistic social system by definition recognizes individual rights, property owners would be constrained by law from violating any person’s rights on the land they control. Law enforcement (i.e., protection of individual rights) would have jurisdiction over all land within the territory ruled by the government.

What about roads, would the same apply here? Would there be different speed limits and safety regulations for each stretch of road owned by a different person? What if one person bought a major highway and decided to charge extortionate prices for it's use? Surely this would cause problems?

First of all, high prices create incentives for competitors to enter the market. Furthermore, every existing parcel of private property has a right of way, meaning the owner has a legal right to access his land. My neighbors on the four sides of my property cannot legitimately join together to block me from entering or exiting my land – or even charge me a fee for coming and going.

Also, upon the selling of all public roads and services, the government would get all the money for them, even though they don't legitimately own the property. Isn't this bad?

Why not rebate the money to those who have paid taxes over the past X number of years?

[DavidOdden]

If everywhere is private property, then do not the owners of these properties have the right to enforce any laws they wish within their property?

No, not at all. Enforcement of law and ownership of property are totally different. The government enforces laws; the owner of property has the right to set additional conditions, as a condition of using his land. But laws against theft, assault, murder and fraud are everywhere enforceable.

Would there be different speed limits and safety regulations for each stretch of road owned by a different person?

You're assuming that roads would be owned in stretches, which is not a necesssary conclusion (and highly impractical). Setting that problem aside, the rules of the road would be set by the owner. They wold balance issues such as the physical properties of the road, the customers, weather, car technology etc. and come up with sensible rules. In the cross-Nebraska stretch, there is no rational reason to have any limit on speed during good weather in the day. I think the speed on the Merrit (CT.) is a bit more than the traffic can really bear (but better entrances would help).

What if one person bought a major highway and decided to charge extortionate prices for it's use? Surely this would cause problems?

But many roads lead to Rome. Take the cheaper highway. I don't see any problem.

[y_feldblum]

All property will be owned by individuals or by the government. The government, however, has no business purchasing property to act as its "caretaker" for the "public". The sole purpose for which government may purchase property is to protect the citizenry's individual rights. Thus, government may own military bases, vehicles, and weaponry, police stations, vehicles, and weaponry, courthouses, and offices for the operation of government. No government purchase is to be construed as owned by the "public", nor is it to be construed as in the possession of government to be taken care of for the "public". Thus, national forests and landmarks are out, public parks are out, public hospitals and schools are out, etc. No government property is to be purchased for the benefit of the "public", except insofar as protection of the citizenry's individuals rights is such a benefit.

Individuals would own roads, because roads are not in the list of kinds of property government may purchase. The individuals who own roads will pay to maintain them, or else they will face tough competition from other individuals who own or are willing to build roads. Your original question needs no answering: if an individual who owns roads were to charge "extortionist" prices, so be it; if he refuses to enforce safety on his roads, so be it. He will soon find himself with mounting maintenance expenses and no revenues to cover them, as the demand for his roads has now become the demand for others' roads. A basic law of economics is this: there are no conflicts of interest among rational men, so act rationally among rational men or reality will punish you. Here, the form in which such punishment takes is steep competition, loss of revenue, and mounting maintenance expenses. After the irrational "extortionist" has acted so irrationally, his only semi-rational choice to save himself would be to sell his roads at a discount, so that others might use them rationally. If he chooses not to do even this, he will drag himself into poverty.

[Eric Mathis]

All property will be owned by individuals or by the government.

So how do you reconcile this with Ayn Rand's statement that “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.”

Are you suggesting that government property should be regarded as "privately owned"?

[valjean]

So how do you reconcile this with Ayn Rand's statement that “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.”

MY reconciliation is to say that, perhaps, Rand meant what she said--the government should not own private property. This would be leasing out the services/equipment/material of corporations or individuals for everything--police, military, etc.

I don't know if this is correct, so somebody please let me know.

EDIT: I think physical currency would count as property, and I don't see how a government could operate without money. This throws another bone into Rand's statement about all property being privately owned (which wasn't my intent).

Edited May 4, 2005 by valjean

[Oakes]

There is no question that a rational government will own property: court houses, police stations/cars, military bases, etc. To expect it to lease these things from private corporations is ridiculous.

EDIT: I think physical currency would count as property, and I don't see how a government could operate without money. This throws another bone into Rand's statement about all property being privately owned (which wasn't my intent).

Currency will be privately operated.

Edited May 4, 2005 by Oakes

[Eric Mathis]

There is no question that a rational government will own property: court houses, police stations/cars, military bases, etc. To expect it to lease these things from private corporations is ridiculous.

So when Ayn Rand said "all property," she did not mean "all property"?

Currency will be privately operated.

Privately issued, certainly. But would the funds in the U.S. Treasury be privately owned?

Edited May 4, 2005 by Eric Mathis

[Oakes]

So when Ayn Rand said "all property," she did not mean "all property"?

I do not know exactly what she meant by that statement, but I do know that she was not an anarchist. Either this is just trivial semantics, or she said that statement in exclusion to the obvious necessities of government.

Privately issued, certainly. But would the funds in the U.S. Treasury be privately owned?

If "privately owned" means owned by anyone other than the government, the answer should be obvious.

[Eric Mathis]

So under capitalism, all property would be privately owned except for the property that is not privately owned.

[Oakes]

So under capitalism, all property would be privately owned except for the property that is not privately owned.

My guess is that Miss Rand was taking for granted that her readers were not anarchists. Perhaps she didn't forsee an internet age when Libertarians would come on Objectivist message boards and unceasingly draw meanings from her words that she didn't intend. Who knows.

Edited May 4, 2005 by Oakes

[y_feldblum]

Government ownership of property - its right to use and dispose of said property - would be limited to enforcing the ban on aggression. Thus, government does not own property in the same sense as individuals own property, since government does not have the right to use and dispose of property any way its officials wish. Individuals do have that right.

Nevertheless, government would own property: the property which individuals donate to it or which it acquires via such fees as one on long-term contracts, in order to prevent and punish aggression. Government may not purchase any property if its purpose in purchasing it is not explicitly to prevent and punish aggression, and any property donated to it not for that purpose it must immediately sell.

Government would own property in a very limited sense under laissez-faire, and its ownership of property would amount to very little. I see this position to be completely in keeping with Ayn Rand's position. I consider government ownership of property in the form outlined above as a form of private ownership, not public ownership. It bears no conceptual relationship to public ownership, except for whether the government or an individual is the owner. It bears much conceptual relationship to private property, insofar as even this limited purposed government ownership is acquired and used only without violating individual rights.

[Eric Mathis]

My guess is that Miss Rand was taking for granted that her readers were not anarchists. Perhaps she didn't forsee an internet age when Libertarians would come on Objectivist message boards and unceasingly draw meanings from her words that she didn't intend. Who knows.

Are you suggesting that meaning of the phrase "all property is privately owned" changes on the basis of who reads it? Isn't that a form of subjectivism? In any case, if under capitalism, "all property is privately owned" (except for the property that is owned by the government), how does it differ from the status quo?

[Oakes]

Are you suggesting that meaning of the phrase "all property is privately owned" changes on the basis of who reads it?

No. I'm saying that people can take statements literally, drawing ridiculous conclusions in the process. It is possible to find out the intended meaning, but that requires some knowledge about her philosophy (that she's not an anarchist, for starters).

In any case, if under capitalism, "all property is privately owned" (except for the property that is owned by the government), how does it differ from the status quo?

What a softball! Because the government is limited to protecting individual rights.

[softwareNerd]

So under capitalism, all property would be privately owned except for the property that is not privately owned.

Actually, this is not unique to Capitalism. Under any system all property would be privately owned except for the property that is not privately owned.

[valjean]

I see what Eric Mathis is saying.

Clearly, Rand stated that "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.”

Apparently, that is not exactly what she meant. I'm uncomfortable with this (she's usually so specific and precise). Perhaps we need to check our premises--including having a look at the entire passage wherein that statement is contained.

Because yes, in general, Rand did say what she literally meant, and wanted to be taken literally.

y_feldblum's comments were helpful but don't totally clear it up.

(P.S.--government contracting out to private corporations is NOT anarchism; having private corporations in control IS.)

[Oakes]

(P.S.--government contracting out to private corporations is NOT anarchism; having private corporations in control IS.)

If the government had to contract out all its property, it would be at the mercy of those particular corporations. More importantly, there is no reason to place such a restriction on the government, save a general dislike for the government (i.e., anarchism).

EDIT: I forgot to mention, I am not against the gov't contracting to private corporations. I'm against forcing it to do so as a rule (all the time).

Edited May 5, 2005 by Oakes

[DavidV]

A definition is a statement of the essential characteristic(s) of an entity. It is not equivalent to the entity itself, and it's a fallacy to ignore the full context of the entity it defines.

For example, I could define a cat as a “a small domesticated feline that is covered with fur.” That definition is valid even thought not all cats are domesticated or covered with fur, and not all small domesticated felines are cats. The essential trait of a cat is that it is a “domesticated feline” but concept of a cat includes all its other traits, including the possibility of it becoming wild or being hairless.

[softwareNerd]

Here is how I understand Objectivist position:

1) Property is not ab initio "public" in the sense of being owned by "society" until some individual rightfully claims it. (see "The Property Status of Airwaves" - in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal").

Property is ab initio either not owned by anyone or owned by individuals. It may be legitimately disposed of only with the consent of the owner.

2) Capitalism requires a government, with a certain legitimate role. Objectivism rejects anarchy and the idea of "competing governments". ("Nature of Government", mentioned above). Government is not simply an institution that is tolerated under Capitalism, it is an institution that is required.

3) Government financing should be voluntary.

Considering the entire context, let's ask this question: If I volunteer to give the government $1,000 and they take it, who owns it? Do I continue to own it, or is it owned by the institution? If the transaction is legitimate, the money is now the property of the institution: i.e. of the government.

Philosophically, the government may use the money collected in the form of tax in any way that contributes to its legitimate function.

Separately, the philosophy of law would need to work out how to implement a system of voluntary contributions and of government expenditures.

Sadly, we're far away from the time when we'd have to consider the details of this issue. perhaps after we have rolled back the last 100 years of increasing government control and ownership, we'll have a hearty debate of just where to stop.

[y_feldblum]

y_feldblum's comments were helpful but don't totally clear it up.

This criticism is helpful, but doesn't totally clear up what you'd like me to do better.

[Eric Mathis]

No. I'm saying that people can take statements literally, drawing ridiculous conclusions in the process. It is possible to find out the intended meaning, but that requires some knowledge about her philosophy (that she's not an anarchist, for starters).

So a thorough study of Objectivism would permit one to read the statement "all property will be privately owned" as "some property will be privately owned"?

What a softball! Because the government is limited to protecting individual rights.

So in regard to ownership of property, under capitalism, "all property is privately owned" (except for the property that is owned by the government), whereas under a mixed economy, "all property is privately owned" (except for the property that is owned by the government).

[Eric Mathis]

Government would own property in a very limited sense under laissez-faire, and its ownership of property would amount to very little. I see this position to be completely in keeping with Ayn Rand's position. I consider government ownership of property in the form outlined above as a form of private ownership, not public ownership. It bears no conceptual relationship to public ownership, except for whether the government or an individual is the owner. It bears much conceptual relationship to private property, insofar as even this limited purposed government ownership is acquired and used only without violating individual rights.

So under capitalism the police force would be privately owned? Who are these private property owners, if not the public?

[Oakes]

So a thorough study of Objectivism would permit one to read the statement "all property will be privately owned" as "some property will be privately owned"?

A study of Objectivism would permit one to read it as "the vast majority of property will be privately owned."

So in regard to ownership of property, under capitalism, "all property is privately owned" (except for the property that is owned by the government), whereas under a mixed economy, "all property is privately owned" (except for the property that is owned by the government).

The nature of the government itself is entirely different under these two systems. If you cannot see that much, this discussion is more of a waste of time than I thought it was.