Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Owning Land?

Rate this topic


Jon Southall

Recommended Posts

I agree to pay rent to use an apartment or house, the money I agree to pay (which is the sum the landlord agrees to accept to allow me use of property, eg the market price of the rent). The agreement between myself and the landlord is an example of voluntary trade. How am I being deluded into thinking that the price I agreed to pay , is not in fact the price I agrred tp pay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dream_Weaver,

"The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man’s mind and labor." Galt's Speech."

"The idea that the law of causality is somehow to be delimited to property only consisting of what man caused is, quite frankly, bizarre in my mind."

Lol.

 

Jon, your version of "cause" is to play God and bring physical matter from non-existence into existence.

 

Galt's version of "cause" is to re-arrange existing matters in ways to produce/cause meaningful new combinations (picking a wild apple from a tree, forging sand into glass, mining aluminium..etc.)

 

I don't know if you are sincerely not grasping this concept or this is just another one of your purposeful evasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Vect. A straw man argument.

Are you claiming man is the cause of the existence of aluminium atoms? That is simply false.

If you produce some aluminium that aluminium will be yours.

 

 

"Jon, your version of "cause" is to play God and bring physical matter from non-existence into existence."

Sure it is Vect. Keep dreaming lol.

 

 

I don't dream what you write up yourself Jon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vect,

Lol. So you think the source of existence of aluminium and an aluminium car component are without distinction. Why am I not surprised. What exists in nature and what exists as a result of productive human activity are not the same Vect. I'm sure you'll get it one day.

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tadmjones, yes. In the same sense that people are forced to pay tax. Some people pay their taxes voluntarily and think its a natural thing to have to pay tax. The same is true of people who pay economic rent.

You would presumably think that those who pay tax voluntarily would recognise that if it were truly voluntary they wouldn't be fined or deprived of previously enjoyed liberty if they chose not to pay it. It is compulsory. The same is true of economic rent.

As with tax you could avoid paying economic rent but this would force you to live a certain very limited lifestyle and would prevent you from, for example, living and working in New York or London.

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon, if you were arguing about land tax as being immoral, and akin to the government taking the position that you don't own your land (somehow the government does) and must pay the protection money or have the jackbooted thugs come in to remove you if you do not, it would make for a better case than this insidious incredulous notion that unimproved property ownership is somehow immoral.

 

Edited: Former, latter

 

Thanks, tadmjones.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair I would give the benefit of the doubt and assume the insidiuousness is unintentional and more a consequence of mistaken ideas. Mistaken on the premise of the rationalistic use of economic concepts of method by then going 'back' to moral/ethical base to assign a normative evaluation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@dream_weaver

 

To be fair, I would also argue that unimproved item cannot be claimed as property.

 

But how much labour actions is needed to transform an item from un-improved status to improved status is both variable and debatable. I would say that the act of building a house on a land is enough to transform that land from unimproved status into improved. 

 

@Jon,

 

Principle wise you can only argue either one of two things:

Principle:

 

-Labour actions can improve un-improved (and therefore unclaimed) land/material into improved land/material

-improved land/material can be claimed as property and be rented

 

OR

 

-Since men did not bring physical matters from non-existence into existence

-Labour actions cannot claim ownership of land/material, but can only claim their usage right (aka borrowing) from nature

-borrowed material/land can be used at will for one's own purposes, but they cannot be rented

 

So I'll not bring up whatever past post you've written. Just state once and for all your position, which is it?

 

If you pick the first, then the question of principle is already past. All that's left is the debate of what degree of labour action should be regarded as proper to transform certain land/material from unimproved/unclaimed status into improved/claimed status.

 

Practical Degree:

 

-The labour action of picking a wild apple is enough to improve that wild unclaimed apple into a claimed picked apple and be transformed into a property that can be rented

-The labour action of mining a piece of aluminium ore is enough to transform those aluminium atoms into improved status and claim it as property and be rented

-The labour action of building a house on a piece of land is enough to improve that piece of land to claim it as property and be rented

 

OR

 

-The action of simply picking a wilding apple isn't enough to improve that wild unclaimed apple into a claimed picked apple. You have to further make that apple into an apple pie to claim all those delicious apple molecules as your property and to be able to rent them

 

-The labour action of mining a piece of aluminium ore isn't enough to claimed those aluminium atoms. You will have to input further labour to transform the ore into car-grade aluminium to claim those atoms and be able to rent them

 

-Simply building a house isn't enough to claim the land below it (others can do what they want with the land below your house, as long as they do it such as way that doesn't damage your house), you will have to input further labour actions to transform those natural dirt into part of a concrete foundation to claim the land below

Edited by VECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@dream_weaver

 

To be fair, I would also argue that unimproved item cannot be claimed as property.

 

But how much labour actions is needed to transform an item from un-improved status to improved status is both variable and debatable. I would say that the act of building a house on a land is enough to transform that land from unimproved status into improved. 

 

Then I may not be understanding the crux of this issue. When my father bought 40 acres up north years ago with a small partnership, the only thing that separated it from the rest of the surrounding area were the stakes driven by surveying the parcel. Isn't this essentially owning unimproved property, or does the surveying of the parcel and registering the transaction with the local municipality become part of the variable and debatable improved status?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might sound nitpicky, but the stakes driven into the ground and registration would be the improvement in this case.

 

The point is some sort of physical action (building a house, driving stakes, building fences, or merely registering with the government an area of land over a map) needs to be enacted to lay claim.

 

The question whether or not physical actions can improve and therefore claim natural land/materials as property at all is the question of principle.

 

Whether or not a certain physical action is enough to improve the land and therefore, to be claimed (and how large an area..etc.) is both variable and debatable.

 

But then again, I'd say when talking about what degree is proper, that's more into the province of Law-Making rather than Philosophy.

Edited by VECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dream_Weaver,

"it would make for a better case than this insidious incredulous notion that unimproved property ownership is somehow immoral."

What is the moral basis of claiming the unearned as your own? You're voting in favour of the parasite. I wouldn't find that incredulous if it were coming from an altruist but from an Objectivist I am surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vect writes:

"But how much labour actions is needed to transform an item from un-improved status to improved status is both variable and debatable. I would say that the act of building a house on a land is enough to transform that land from unimproved status into improved."

This is another repeated point which is illogical.

How much labour is required to create capital is irrelevant. Any capital which is created is property that can be owned exclusively whether it took a little or a lot of effort.

If a plot of land is used to erect a dwelling, the improvement is the dwelling. One can own the improvement, the dwelling. At what point, when constructing a dwelling, do you become entitled to extend your ownership claim to that which exists independently of your actions?

Vect claims that there is a magical point when building something entitles you to more than what you have built. What is this elusive point? What is its existence premised on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dream_Weaver,

"it would make for a better case than this insidious incredulous notion that unimproved property ownership is somehow immoral."

What is the moral basis of claiming the unearned as your own? You're voting in favour of the parasite. I wouldn't find that incredulous if it were coming from an altruist but from an Objectivist I am surprised.

In Inequality is the enemy of growth. Discuss you will find:

 

Wikipedia offers a section on the history of property rights. It is not very comprehensive, but may provide a starting point of sorts.

 

The Ayn Rand Lexicon offers a section on property rights. It is consistent with the notion that ownership is earned that I pointed out to you earlier.

 

In The Virtue of Selfishness: Rights of Man, Miss Rand adds:

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

 

In OPAR's Objectivity, Leonard Peikoff writes:

The right to property is a consequence of man's right to life; which right we can establish only if we know the nature and value of man's life; which conclusion presupposes, among other things, that objective value-judgments are possible; which presupposes that objective knowledge is possible; which depends on a certain relationship between man's mind and reality, i.e., between consciousness and existence. If a thinker does not know and count on this kind of structure, he can neither defend property rights nor define the concept nor apply it correctly.

 

Particularly relevant to the Atlas Shrugged passage of Scudder's (if you think my bringing it up was a mistaken judgment of you, it hadn't crossed my mind until you brought it to my attention) from The Cashing In: The Student "Rebellion" in For the New Intellectual (also cited in the Lexicon):

It is only on the basis of property rights that the sphere and application of individual rights can be defined in any given social situation. Without property rights, there is no way to solve or to avoid a hopeless chaos of clashing views, interests, demands, desires and whims.

 

One other relevant note that Rand did not mean the subtype of the law of causality you reference; man's causal efficacy, is revealed in her letter to Frank Lloyd Write of August 20, 1945 planning a month long vacation in New York with the intent of buying land for a Frank Lloyd Wright home of her own. - Given this, it's pretty clear to me when she wrote "All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man's mind and labor.", she did not mean simply the product of man's actions.

and

 

Rights cannot be defended by attacking them. 

 

The landowner is providing the capital (the land), in a case where someone may desire to farm it, or if there is a house on it, a dwelling to someone who may desire a place to stay, or if a commercial building is there, to someone to set up a commercial enterprise, where any of these potential renters may not have the wherewithal or desire to purchase something outright.

 

Trying to defend the right to pursuit ownership of property is not done by attacking the right to trade its use to others who may be seeking to do the same. Ownership is earned while stewardship determines long-term ownership.

As insistent as you are about others about not casting your position as contrary to the one you are trying to state, why perform the transgression?

 

It would help if you identified which of the two principle-wise positions VECT pointed out aligns here. To me, this thread does not resonate with a well organized pursuit of what you are trying to accomplish here.

 

Edited: Added

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When my father bought 40 acres up north years ago with a small partnership, the only thing that separated it from the rest of the surrounding area were the stakes driven by surveying the parcel. Isn't this essentially owning unimproved property"

The key moral question here, for me, is why did your father have to give up some of his wealth, which I presume he earnt through his work, to pay for unimproved land? What was it he paid the previous owner for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key moral question here, for me, is why did your father have to give up some of his wealth, which I presume he earnt through his work, to pay for unimproved land? What was it he paid the previous owner for?

Presuming they bought it from a previous owner and not the state, it was the agreed upon trade, ownership of the property for the agreed upon price,

If it was purchased from the state, then that goes back to the question of what gives the state the permission to charge ongoing rent in addition to the pseudo 'purchase price'.

 

Either way, it ignores VECT's "nitpicky" but clarifying to me, identification of improvement via survey stakes and subsequent registration with the local municipality, so we would no longer be talking about unimproved land..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DW,

I'm not interested in the history of property rights but I am interested in the logic of them, which is the domain of philosophy.

The quotes you cite are quotes I have used to support my own case. The fact Miss Rand intended to buy land was a necessity in order to build a new dwelling. The sub type of the law of causality you suggest differs from the use I was referencing to.

As to the coherence of this thread, perhaps you would do better.

I am happy with my attempt given numerous contributers making irrelevant points, going off on tangents, misrepresenting, creating false dichotomies, giving straw man arguments, and resorting to insulting and at times spiteful behaviour. If there is a philosophical point you are stuck on, set it out clearly and I will try to show you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you buy Vect's argument that stakes delineating a territory constitute an improvement? Lol.

The stakes are only there to clarify what area of unimproved land is being claimed. However Vect himself has argued in this very thread that you cannot claim unowned land without homesteading it. To get around the contradiction he has to define a delineation of the territory as an improvement.

To most reasonable people this will be seen for what it is - clutching at straws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a plot of land is used to erect a dwelling, the improvement is the dwelling. One can own the improvement, the dwelling. At what point, when constructing a dwelling, do you become entitled to extend your ownership claim to that which exists independently of your actions?

Vect claims that there is a magical point when building something entitles you to more than what you have built. What is this elusive point? What is its existence premised on?

 

What is improvement? It's physical actions that re-arranges the physical matters in question. That's it.

 

On principle, if you are not going to argue against physical actions (aka improvement) having the ability claim nature matters as property, then all that's left are questions of degree of physical actions needed.

 

You laugh at merely driving in survey stakes as been too shallow an action. Okay how about if I build a house on it? Oh wait, you were not happy with that amount either. How about I unearth all the dirt of a land I want and re-earth it, would that be enough of an improvement in your book to claim that land? Still no? How about if I unearth all the dirt, mixes that dirt with cement, and then re-earth it?

 

The same example with a tree house. Obviously you are not going to be happy with the idea that merely building a house on a natural tree should be able to claim that tree. If I uproot the tree and re-root it, would that additional action/improvement be enough with you? How about if I water that tree and make it grow a bit before I build my tree house, surely that's enough improvement to claim the natural tree in your book?

 

As for homesteading, that's the recommended default degree of improvement needed to claim land. There's no principle against setting the degree needed to a lesser or stricter degree.

 

But the point of all this is, if you are not going to challenge the principle that physical actions can claim natural materials as property, then it's already game over for your ambition to argue that land cannot be owned on philosophic ground. All that is left to debate is on legal ground of what degree of physical actions is enough for an individual to claim land (mark on map? drive in stakes? build a house? unearth all the dirt and re-earth it? unearth all the dirt and re-earth with cement?..etc.)

Edited by VECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vect writes:

"What is improvement? It's physical actions that re-arranges the physical matters in question. That's it."

So if someone were to blow a hole in your garden that would constitute an improvement? Or if someone adds graffiti on to a work of art that's an improvement? Lol. But "that's it" according to your criteria.

"On principle, if you are not going to argue against physical actions (aka improvement) having the ability claim nature matters as property, then all that's left are questions of degree of physical actions needed."

Firstly, it's based on reason - I don't like your vague and probably improper use of the term principle. Secondly, I will repeat - as I often have to with Vect - an improvement is an improvement. All improvement can be owned - there is no degree of ownership, there are no hurdle points. What you are the cause of is yours.

"You laugh at merely driving in survey stakes as been too shallow an action. Okay how about if I build a house on it?" You own the house.

"How about I unearth all the dirt of a land I want and re-earth it, would that be enough of an improvement in your book to claim that land?" Would there be any material difference before and after?

"How about if I unearth all the dirt, mixes that dirt with cement, and then re-earth it?" Then you can claim the dirt and cement.

Vect continues to entertain:

"The same example with a tree house. Obviously you are not going to be happy with the idea that merely building a house on a natural tree should be able to claim that tree"

No you would own the treehouse but not the tree. Unless you planted and grew the tree.

"If I uproot the tree and re-root it, would that additional action/improvement be enough with you?" You own what you are the cause of. No-one would have the right to move the tree afterwards - but if you had already built the tree house no-one would have had the right to do so before.

"How about if I water that tree and make it grow a bit before I build my tree house, surely that's enough improvement to claim the natural tree in your book?" No. If you grew it from scratch then you'd have a claim. Sprinkling a bit of water on an already mature tree does not give ownership of the whole tree - that will be obvious to any reasonable person. If you wanted to be precise, you would own the growth you were responsible for. It would be impractical to measure this - but as per the above I would question why you need to do anything to the tree. It forms part of the structure of the house, no one can interfere with it without interfering with the house. I've made this same point numerous times but I hope it will go in this time.

"if you are not going to challenge the principle that physical actions can claim natural materials as property, then it's already game over for your ambition to argue that land cannot be owned on philosophic ground." The reasoning is simple. A five year old could understand it. What you are the cause of is yours. When Vect states actions can claim materials as property he is reverting to the elusive magical point I wrote about above. He thinks somewhere in the process of making something, he gets rights to more than he has made. His position is not consistent with Objectivism, which reasons that no one has any entitlement to the unearned.

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tadmjones,

I am quite convinced you don't understand what the Objectivist position is on the origin of rights. What do you think it is?

I have witnessed the depth and scope of your conviction, I doubt my assuring you of my understanding of the origin of rights(which I supplied earlier) would even put a dent in your conviction.

One of the aspects of O'ism that makes it so attractive to me as a philosophic system is the heavy reliance on epistemology. I find stressing the importance of integration is key to understanding O'ism. Falling victim to the use of stolen concepts and floating abstraction can really derail one's thought, you know what I mean?

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...