Owning Land?

[epistemologue]

Does land fall under property rights?

 

Property rights fall under the concept of "rights" in general, and the basis of rights is the right to life, "the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life." - Do you think that one keeping the land they have earned violates another's ability to live his life? Why do they need your land in particular in order to live their life? As long as *some* land is available in which they can achieve their values, it seems like their ability to live is not being interfered with.

 

You said: "I agree with the principle of homesteading in that when the land is transformed via production, those who are transforming have a right to do that without interference."

 

I also think their claim to ownership on that property is justified... "He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered)." In order to plan long-range and deal with people in terms of clear agreements, it's important to draw specific lines for what is your land, and for those to be respected. By then having ownership of that property, you can make plans and think of trade-offs. It exists as a potential to be exploited exclusively by you. "It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values." - If one is capable of earning ownership of land by means of production through the homesteading principle, doesn't one have a right to *keep* what has been earned? Once you've earned the ownership of that land, you should be able to keep what you've earned, even if you're not actively using it productively. Wouldn't you agree there is inherent value in being able to keep what you own? 

 

I just mean, that for a rational person, knowing that you get to keep what you own indefinitely, adds a great deal of value to your life, no? Suppose you work some unclaimed land, turn it into a farm or whatever, and by that principle acquire ownership of the land. In the context of a rational person, the concept of permanent ownership is valuable for your long-term plans. Property ownership doesn't shift underneath you just because someone comes along with any arbitrary claim about that particular piece of land. Any particular time period you choose to say ownership expires would be arbitrary, no? If I, or my company, has a 100 year plan, doesn't that land, as a part of a rational person's productive context, still hold productive value, even if it's not actively being worked for whatever small period of time? I'm alluding to a similar point made in Atlas: big companies like a railroad have 100 year contracts, how are they supposed to operate in a rational manner if the laws are being changed underneath them from moment to moment by the whims of politicians? If I am running a huge company with a decades-long plan to build out an area of land that I own, why should somebody else be able to come in and say, "this piece of land I'm going to use and develop for my own purposes, because your plan is taking too long" - and destroy your plan entirely. Doesn't that seem quite destructive? Why are we cutting down the greatest / most ambitious / most valuable pursuits of rational men, in order to satisfy the needs of the short-range men, who actually don't have any basis for their claim in the right to life in the first place, given that there are other places they can go?

[StrictlyLogical]

"Rights"  ARE the heart of the issue.

 

If you don't know WHAT rights are you can't have a meaningful discussion about any class/subclass or particular right.

 

See this article by Craig Biddle about Rights according to Objectivism:

 

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights/

[Jon Southall]

Hi Epistemologue,

You asked:

"Do you think that one keeping the land they have earned violates another's ability to live his life?"

I would say this assumes something that is being questioned - it assumes land can be earned when this is what is being questioned.

I would say that one earns his improvements. A farmer who turned an uncultivated wilderness into a farm owns the farm - that is his improvement, he was the cause of it, he has earned it. In answer to your question - simply keeping that farm doesn't violate another's ability to live his life.

You asked:

"As long as *some* land is available in which they can achieve their values, it seems like their ability to live is not being interfered with"

It depends on the practicality of accessing that unclaimed land. If it is impractical, it means people do not really have a choice. They cannot realistically avoid economic rent without sacrifice. I believe this is what is typically the case (as it is with living in a way which means you do not have to pay tax).

But say it was practical, then I would agree with you they could just go and set up a new community and would escape the injustice of economic rents.

I agree with you that when land is being used as a factor of production, there is value in setting this out clearly on some land title. This makes it possible for individuals to use land without conflict, or at least for conflicts to be resolved objectively. However this demarcation should not then become a force backed means for appropriating unearned income from future producers. It does become this when rent is charged on the unimproved value of the land.

The logical jump in your argument seems to be going from setting out a land title for the avoidance of dispute over who is using the land, to this demarcation becoming a claim that the landowner was the cause of the unimproved land and so therefore it is his property. It is that step where the law of causality is violated. From this point the landowner can, if backed by force, appropriate unearned income from future producers on the unimproved value of the land he was using. Prior to this, the landowner's property would be what he was the cause of alone; his improvements.

If the farmer stops using the land - what does he do with his farm? Presumably he will rent it or sell it right? Or he could just let it return to an uncultivated state. It's his farm - he can rent it or sell it if he wants and he earns what he gets for it. If he abandons it, his improvements will disappear in time. His title which set out what land he needs for production then loses its meaning.

You said:

"I just mean, that for a rational person, knowing that you get to keep what you own indefinitely, adds a great deal of value to your life, no?"

Yes - it does. I fully support this. The difference between us it that I have recognised that I can only own what I was the cause of, or what I have earned via trade.

Your final comments about longer term use of land - again I see no reason why a title demarcating what land is being used by a producer may not last in perpetuity. This would prevent others from interfering with your plans and construction efforts. I am only taking issue where this demarcation then becomes a force backed means for appropriating unearned income from future producers.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Jon Southall

[Craig24]

I would say that one earns his improvements. A farmer who turned an uncultivated wilderness into a farm owns the farm - that is his improvement, he was the cause of it, he has earned it. In answer to your question - simply keeping that farm doesn't violate another's ability to live his life.

 

Then what is the problem?  He doesn't violate the rights of anyone even if he doesn't make improvements to the land.  He can sit there like a bump on a log, owning that piece of land until he dies and no one elses life is at risk.  

[Jon Southall]

Craig24, if all a guy does is sit on the ground, no one can interfere with him.

Say you wanted to sit down 10ft to his right, and he came over to you and said "this is a lovely spot isn't it. You'll have to pay me $1,000, or I'm going to have to move you on, as you're sitting in my spot", would you be ok with that?

[epistemologue]

wtf is "a force backed means for appropriating unearned income from future producers. It does become this when rent is charged on the unimproved value of the land."? How does that relate to what I was saying?

 

If I build an apartment building on some land, how is that "force backed"? On whom am I using what force - whose rights am I violating, and how? If people voluntarily choose to trade on my terms, how is that "appropriating"? How is money made through voluntary trade "unearned"? How in the world is the development and maintenance of an apartment building, office building, skyscraper, etc, "not productive"? How do you determine that the rent I charge to use my building, at whatever amounts and on whatever terms I want, is "on the unimproved values of the land"?

 

"If he abandons it, his improvements will disappear in time. His title which set out what land he needs for production then loses its meaning." - That's true if you actually mean abandonment - i.e. they don't care what happens to it anymore and wouldn't care to give up the title. But just because land is left unused doesn't mean it's abandoned. I gave an example above, in which land can go unused for an arbitrary amount of time, even in the context of a rational, productive person, and it would be unjust to take it from them or to interfere.

 

You said, "I see no reason why a title demarcating what land is being used by a producer may not last in perpetuity, This would prevent others from interfering with your plans and construction efforts." - So I don't understand the exception you are making here - it's invalid if they happen to be charging rent? Why?

[Jon Southall]

SL, I agree it all rests on knowing what rights are. It's been discussed extensively on this thread but no learning has taken place yet.

[Jon Southall]

Epistemologue.

Just read what I wrote carefully. No one here is saying production or trade is wrong.

[Craig24]

Craig24, if all a guy does is sit on the ground, no one can interfere with him.

Say you wanted to sit down 10ft to his right, and he came over to you and said "this is a lovely spot isn't it. You'll have to pay me $1,000, or I'm going to have to move you on, as you're sitting in my spot", would you be ok with that?

 

I don't have to be ok with it any more than I have to ok with paying $7 for a small cup of beer at a professional sporting event.  What does being ok with anything have to do with it?

[VECT]

SL, I agree it all rests on knowing what rights are. It's been discussed extensively on this thread but no learning has taken place yet.

 

You have no idea how right you are.

[epistemologue]

Epistemologue.

Just read what I wrote carefully. No one here is saying production or trade is wrong.

 

... do you see how your position seems baseless, and destructive to rational producers, as I described? You've left a lot of questions unanswered!

[Jon Southall]

Craig24,

That was very pedantic of you. You know what my meaning was but I'll spell it out for you. Does he have a right to the $1000 he demands?

[Jon Southall]

Vect, no I really do.

[Jon Southall]

Epistemologue - no I don't. All I see is a failure to comprehend.

[VECT]

Consider the big-ass evasion of a post you pulled after I busted your two main-arguments at the end of our long discussion, no, I really don't think you do.

[Craig24]

Craig24,

That was very pedantic of you. You know what my meaning was but I'll spell it out for you. Does he have a right to the $1000 he demands?

 

Wrong question.  This is the right one:

Does he have the right to charge $1000?  Yes

If he is paid, does he own that $1000?  Yes

[Plasmatic]

Here's another question: Is there any other kind of force other than physical? No

And another: Is there any such thing as an unforced slave? No.

Does the whole of Jon's argument rest on invalid concepts like the above? Yes......

[Jon Southall]

Craig24, 

 

I disagree with you.

[Jon Southall]

Vect,

 

There was nothing worth responding to.

[VECT]

You mean there was nothing you can respond to.

[Jon Southall]

Plasmatic, 

 

I'll leave you to reflect on the following:

 

"A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others." 

 

"When man learns to understand and control his own behavior as well as he is learning to understand and control the behavior of crop plants and domestic animals, he may be justified in believing that he has become civilized." 

 

"The truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it."

 

"The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see."

[Jon Southall]

Vect, no I mean there was nothing worth responding to. I mean what I say.

[VECT]

Oh I'm not disagreeing what you find worth or not.

 

Your intention here is to convert people into your way of thinking. If they bring up counter arguments you can't defend, of course there's no point further wasting your time.

[Jon Southall]

I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything. I'm not going to have people distort and misrepresent me and then claim I have a duty to untangle the ball of string which is their own creation. I want an honest discussion with people who are capable of understanding the matter. 

[VECT]

Honesty?

 

How honest is it to trying to evade counter-arguments by instead asking another to justify what some other self-proclaimed Objectivist might have said in another part of the internet?

 

In hindsight I should never have even replied to that large excretion of a post you made after I busted your natural potential argument with the orchard example. That was the real end of this discussion.