Privatization Of Land

[Nxixcxk]

I've been thinking about the privatization of land and I keep coming up with difficulties.

For instance, if all land is privately owned, and I own none, and no one allows me on their property, what happens to me? (I'm not interested in hearing objections to my question saying that it is impossible for 'everyone' to rejectme from their property)

Also, a right to life must consequentially include some right to property, else where would one put one's self if one owned nothing?

And if there are any books that discuss changing our system from public to private, I'd love to hear about them.

[issackd]

If you mean "property" in the sense of cars, computers, clothes, etc... then your situation is indeed unrealistic.

If you mean real property, such as land, then I don't see a problem. There are people who go through their whole life not "owning" property - such as those who live in downtown areas where land is too expensive to buy for most people and they simply rent (they hold possession of the apartment while someone else holds ownership).

I also don't think using "and no one allows me" makes the situation any better. If you mean no one is willing to sell to you, then I suggest raising the price you offer.

I don't equate owning property with freedom of the individual in the sense you're suggesting (that freedom may only derive from owning land). Being allowed to own land is important to a successfully free life, but I'm not sure the causation chain works in reverse. Remember, you have the right to own land, not the concrete prerogative that you will/must own land.

Finally, some may argue that your need for land (regardless of why you need it or why no one allows you to hold land) may trump a land-owner's claim to that land. If you support this system, then just remember that next time you own land, some punk whose "need" outweighs your ownership may come along and strip you of your possession. This punk's name may be "the people" under authority of some random Comrade.

Issack

Hey,

I forgot to address your first issue... of people not letting you onto their land...

Just because all land is privately owned, this doesn't mean that malls, shelters, etc don't exist... it simply means that someone privately operates them, rather than the gov't. I would find it hard to believe that in a society where there is complete respect and support for private ownership, discrimination would be rampant... for example, saying that X cannot go on any one's property because he is of Y background. Such societies are advocated by libertarians, Objectivists, capitalists, etc... such people would hardly support any unfounded discrimination against you...

So I'm sorry to say the only way I can answer your first question is to do exactly what you asked me not to do... by saying your question is too fantastic to contemplate.

That's like asking "what happens if man walked on the sun" and then adding "please ignore the issue of whether man could do this or not".

I'm interested in hearing what other, more veteran Objectivists would have to say about this.

Issack

[DavidOdden]

For instance, if all land is privately owned, and I own none, and no one allows me on their property, what happens to me? (I'm not interested in hearing objections to my question saying that it is impossible for 'everyone' to rejectme from their property)

How in the world did you get yourself into this mess? I've known some obnoxious people in my life, but what's the deal with you -- you've alienated all of your friends, your parents hate you and won't allow you on their property, not at any price? You've enraged the mall owners so that you are banned from their property, and you've even irritated the owner of the Quickimart so that he puts up a "Nix on Nxixcxk!" sign?

Your only hope is that even though all land is privately ownable, not all land is necessarily owned. There are such places, though admittedly they're located between BFE and Timbuktu. You also have the right to leave the planet and live on Mars.

Also, a right to life must consequentially include some right to property, else where would one put one's self if one owned nothing?

Ew, ick, no. You can insert various nouns for "property" such as "food", "clothing" and all sorts of things that you need to stay alive. The right to own something doesn't mean you have the right to be provided something. Your needs do not create a claim on my life. The bottom line is that the horrible actions that you took in your life which resulted in you being universally hated and rejected by civilized and uncivilized people alike must have been so far beyond unspeakable as to be, well, hyper-unspeakable. And yet amazingly, you became universally hated without violating anyone's rights, thereby landing yourself in jail (which is a place to exist). Man, what did you do??

[DragonMaci]

I've been thinking about the privatization of land and I keep coming up with difficulties.

For instance, if all land is privately owned, and I own none, and no one allows me on their property, what happens to me? (I'm not interested in hearing objections to my question saying that it is impossible for 'everyone' to rejectme from their property)

Also, a right to life must consequentially include some right to property, else where would one put one's self if one owned nothing?

And if there are any books that discuss changing our system from public to private, I'd love to hear about them.

I'm still new to Objectivism, but I think I can help you a little here with a couple of bits of advice:

1. Firstly you could try relocating to an area where you aren't hated so much.

2. Secondly you could try reviewing your behaviour to see if they banned you from their property because of it.

Also, I agree with DavidOdden's and issakd's replies.

If you are just speculating... well I fail to see why your speculating such an unlikely event. and if you're speculating about noone anywhere allowing you onto your land... then I don't understand why you'd want to speculate on something so impossible.

Edited December 28, 2005 by DragonMaci

[Dismuke]

I've been thinking about the privatization of land and I keep coming up with difficulties.

<snip>

Also, a right to life must consequentially include some right to property, else where would one put one's self if one owned nothing?

You are correct in that your right to life does include some right to property: you own yourself, and, as a consequence, you own your time and your effort. Any other property that one might need in order to live one's life - food, shelter, clothing, etc - one earns by trading one's time and effort with others who own/produce whatever it is one needs. Trading your time and effort is the resolution to the "difficulty" you keep coming up with regarding private land ownership.

What is the alternative to private land ownership? It is communism - i.e. a system which, in practice, means that those in political power own all land - which means anybody's ability to "put one's self" anywhere exists as a matter of privilege, and not by right. It is under communism that nobody has a right to put himself anywhere - and the solution to it is private property, i.e., capitalism.

Furthermore, to accept for a moment the premise of your question, what on earth would you do with whatever parcel of land might be allocated to you on the premise that it would at least be a place where you would have a right "put one's self"? Would you operate a self-sufficient farm on it? To do that, you would need quite a lot of land - and there simply does not exist enough land to provide that for everybody.

The simple fact of the matter is that, in a modern, industrialized economy, land ownership is an absolute necessity for only a relatively small percentage of the population. It may or may not be to your advantage to rent or lease your place of residence instead of owning it. It may or may not be to a company's benefit to lease the premises where it conducts business instead of owning them. Obviously, if you are a farmer or a real estate developer, it is usually necessary to own land. But if you are an actor or a computer programmer - well, land ownership is most likely based on considerations of convenience and investment potential as opposed to necessity.

Edited December 28, 2005 by Dismuke

[jrs]

If you are on someone's property when this universal hatred of you develops, can he force you off of his property? None of the immediate neighbors will allow you onto their property. So it would appear that he is stuck with you.

[Dismuke]

If you are on someone's property when this universal hatred of you develops, can he force you off of his property? None of the immediate neighbors will allow you onto their property. So it would appear that he is stuck with you.

But it wouldn't work that way. One does not have a right to use one's property to landlock and effectively imprison somebody on their property or to prevent them or their guests from accessing their property. If I owned a plot of land and you went out and purchased all of the land immediately adjoining it in all directions, I would immediately acquire a right to an easement through your property for the sole purpose of allowing me and my guests to be able to come and go from my property.

If you look at an aerial photo of most rural areas in the Midwestern United States, you will see that it looks like a series of squares. There is a reason for it - that is how the land was surveyed back in the 19th century. Land was divided into one square mile east-west by north-south sections. Along the edge of these sections, a certain width of land was retained as public right of way in order to provide people with access to their property without having to cross other people's land. If a one square mile section of land was subdivided, usually additional right of ways were often incorporated into it, again, so that people could access their property.

In most rural areas - such as rural Kansas were my grandparents lived - those rights of way continue to exist as roads maintained by the county (in Kansas, most such county roads are gravel or dirt). Most of the state and federal highways in that state also follow the route of the old right of way. In the Dallas/Fort Worth area, where I live, there are entire parts of town, where the major north-south and east-west thoroughfares follow the old section lines and are exactly one mile apart from each other. However, the road grid here is especially interesting because this region is at the edge of the old Spanish land grants which were surveyed in a northwest-southeast by southwest-northeast grid.

The need for such right of ways will continue to exist even under full capitalism. Whether the government should be responsible for the maintenance of any roads which exist on such right of ways or whether they should be maintained by the property owners bordering them is certainly a topic for debate. The notion of private, for-profit roads really makes sense only in the context of expressways and heavily traveled thoroughfares. A road that is used only by one or two isolated farms would never generate enough traffic to operate as a toll road. And, even if it did, the operator of a toll road would not be exempt from the principle that one may not block off access to another person's property - so, in many cases, the operators of private roads would have no choice but to provide free access to properties which border the road.

[DavidOdden]

If you are on someone's property when this universal hatred of you develops, can he force you off of his property? None of the immediate neighbors will allow you onto their property. So it would appear that he is stuck with you.

So this just develops overnight -- must be the Dawn of the Dead virus. No, he cannot. He permitted you on his property; he has the right to tell you to leave, but he is to call the police to evict you for trespassing, if he's having a fit. This would be true even if the virus had not spread to the neighbors, and he was the only on the planet to get struck with Absolute Divine Hatred. If you threaten to kill him, of course, you've crossed the line and he has the right to defend himself.

[Capitalism Forever]

The need for such right of ways will continue to exist even under full capitalism.

Why? After all,

If I owned a plot of land and you went out and purchased all of the land immediately adjoining it in all directions, I would immediately acquire a right to an easement through your property for the sole purpose of allowing me and my guests to be able to come and go from my property.

[DavidOdden]

One does not have a right to use one's property to landlock and effectively imprison somebody on their property or to prevent them or their guests from accessing their property. If I owned a plot of land and you went out and purchased all of the land immediately adjoining it in all directions, I would immediately acquire a right to an easement through your property for the sole purpose of allowing me and my guests to be able to come and go from my property.

Should I read this last statement as meaning that as a sane person, you would be sure that you have such a right before purchasing the property, and if not you would immediately set about negotiating for such a right? Surely you're not suggesting that such a right is instantly conferred without further action on your part, simply as a consequence of owning a parcel of land, in a society governed by Objectivist principles? I'm suggesting that easement by necessity would go the way of the right of eminent domain.

[Capitalism Forever]

Should I read this last statement as meaning that as a sane person, you would be sure that you have such a right before purchasing the property

Dismuke doesn't need to purchase the property because he already owns it. It is his neighbor-to-be that is purchasing (or homesteading) all the land around him. Dismuke already has the title to his land, which gives him the right to approach it. The new neighbor must respect this right--that is the sense in which the easement is "automatically created."

[DavidOdden]

Dismuke doesn't need to purchase the property because he already owns it. It is his neighbor-to-be that is purchasing (or homesteading) all the land around him. Dismuke already has the title to his land, which gives him the right to approach it. The new neighbor must respect this right--that is the sense in which the easement is "automatically created."

I'm disputing the underlined claim. Before he acquired the land, the (former) owner of the land may have secured the right to cross Smith's property in order to access the land. Maybe that right is granted for no cost, or for a dollar a year, or for a thousand per century. Whatever the case may be, he needs to determine whether there is such a right, whether it transfers with the property, and whether he's willing to negotiate with Smith before buying the property -- that could be a very important consideration in deciding whether to buy plot A vs. plot B. You can't just moot these issues by saying "Well, I need access to my property, so I'm going to cut across your property to get to my land". If Dismuke has an unconditional right to cut across Smith's property to get to his own ranch, then he has the right to restrict what Smith does with his property (for example, he cannot turn the adjoining property into a cranberry bog because that would impinge on Dismuke's right to access his own property). My point is that the underlying issue arises before Dismuke acquires the property. Whether or not the new neighbor has an obligation to allow Dismuke on his land depends on the specifics of how Dismuke (or the guy before Dismuke) acquired this easement.

[Dismuke]

Should I read this last statement as meaning that as a sane person, you would be sure that you have such a right before purchasing the property, and if not you would immediately set about negotiating for such a right? Surely you're not suggesting that such a right is instantly conferred without further action on your part, simply as a consequence of owning a parcel of land, in a society governed by Objectivist principles?

I am suggesting exactly that - and Capitalism Forever is completely correct in his explanation of why.

Such situations are rare because public rights of way already exist and because it is in nobody's rational self-interest that they arise. The most common example of such a situation that I can think of would be if I owned a parcel of land fronting a road and I sold you the back half. Even if we failed to include provisions for an easement in the contract, you would, by virtue of the situation, acquire a right to such an easement which would also be binding on subsequent owners of the front parcel. Most of these situations are addressed whenever land is subdivided. But there are occasions when they have not been or the manner in which they were address is either unclear or in disupute. It is in those instances that a court may need to recognize an easement by necessity.

I'm suggesting that easement by necessity would go the way of the right of eminent domain.

But eminent domain and such easements are apples and oranges. Eminent domain arises based on a claim that the government or some fictional non-entity such as "society" has an alleged "right" to your property. An easement by necessity arises based on the need to protect the rights of an impacted property owner to the use and enjoyment of his property.

Property rights do not exist as out-of-context absolutes. Like all rights, they are limited by their impact on the rights of other people, in this situation, the rights of neighboring property owners. If you live out in the country 5 miles from your nearest neighbor, you have every right in the world to operate loud machinery outdoors at 3:00 AM. If you live in a residential subdivision, you do not have such a right to do the same at 3:00 AM and perhaps at any hour because your neighbors have a right to the use and peaceful enjoyment of their property which would be violated by such noise.

The potential for disputes over things such as incompatible uses of adjoining properties is fairly high, especially when one is in an urban area. That is one of the reasons why, contrary to the anarchists, objective law and government are an absolute necessity for the protection of individual rights and private property. A situation of a landlocked parcel of property is an example of such a dispute. The owner of that property, like all property owners, has a right to the use and peaceful enjoyment of his property - which inherently includes the right of him and his guests to be able to access his own property.

Think of what the alternative would imply: by virtue of simply buying surrounding properties, you would be able to effectively deprive a man without paying him any compensation of any use of his property and of it having any value as property because you would suddenly be the one who has effective control over it. You might not be legally able to occupy or access the landlocked parcel yourself - but you would have, for all intents and purposes, terminated its existence as property and transformed it into a sort of no-man's land which nobody would have the legal right to access. Such an absurd situation would never be allowed to occur under a rational legal system - and could only occur if one were to regard one party's property rights as an out-of-context absolute.

Edited December 28, 2005 by Dismuke

[Dismuke]

Why? After all,

The reason is because the problem with such easements is they are fraught with the potential for disputes.

So I have a right to access my property and, as a result, I have a right to an easement over your land in order to get to it. Ok. So exactly where on your property will this easement exist? Can you suddenly change your mind as to where it exists after I have already rearranged the layout of my property based on the location of the old easement? Exactly what sort of access must you provide me? For example, if I need to get a truck or tractor onto my property, must you provide a route that is suitable for such vehicles to travel on? If no such route exists, must you create one for me? Or if I am responsible for creating one, how much latitude to I have with regard to its construction?

Resolving the situation by means of public rights of ways is much more desirable. Without them, all property is effectively "landlocked" which would require everybody to provide easements for access to their neighbors' property - and that, of course, not only would be confusing but would also diminish everyone's ability to have as much control over the use and enjoyment of their property as possible.

Keep in mind that the old public rights of way created by the old square mile surveys do not violate anybody's rights and are not "public property" in the sense that collectivists usually mean when they use that term. When those regions of the USA were surveyed, the land, for the most part, did not exist as property. What the government did was define the physical boundaries of property rights in such regions. Creating rights of way which simply did not exist as property was a very rational way of resolving the issue of access. In subsequent years, such rights of way became important for reasons other than roads - they also provide a way to run utilities such as electric and phone wires to people's property without the necessity of the providers having to constantly negotiate easements in all instances.

[Nxixcxk]

Wow, this stuff is fascinating!

How in the world did you get yourself into this mess? I've known some obnoxious people in my life, but what's the deal with you -- you've alienated all of your friends, your parents hate you and won't allow you on their property, not at any price? You've enraged the mall owners so that you are banned from their property, and you've even irritated the owner of the Quickimart so that he puts up a "Nix on Nxixcxk!" sign?...Man, what did you do?

LOL!! Thanks for elaborating on the ludicrousness of it, but still, I must point you humorously back to my objection in parthensis .

Furthermore, to accept for a moment the premise of your question, what on earth would you do with whatever parcel of land might be allocated to you on the premise that it would at least be a place where you would have a right "put one's self"? Would you operate a self-sufficient farm on it? To do that, you would need quite a lot of land - and there simply does not exist enough land to provide that for everybody.

Hah, thanks for elucidating such an obvious point...for some reason I was visualizing myself on a sq.foot of land thinking, "Yes, this is sufficient!" I forgot to ask the most apparent question, however, sufficient for what?

Also Dismuke, in another part of your post you mention "right of ways" so that people can access their property if surrounded by someone else's. But now I must wonder who owns those 'right of ways.'

The reason why I am asking these seemingly out-of-context questions is b/c non-Objectivists give them to me all the time and I have difficulty responding to them in a way that satisfies me and my listener.

Another example:

Repeatedly, I am ask the question, "Under capitalism, what happens when a grocerie store corporation (Sam's Club, for instance), offers such great products at low prices that the corporation eventually buys out all other corporations and small businesses, and then, since they are the only operating food chain in America, jacks the prices up on all their commodities and offers bread at $15 a loaf?"

I will respond by saying that it wouldn't be in the corporation's interest to jack up the price of their product b/c it would make consumers unhappy (So? It doesn't matter if the consumer is unhappy b/c he has no place else to buy food). I would also say that a CEO of such a successful corporation would never do this; his previous actions simply don't lead us to believe that he is capable of such an act (Maybe he might, people have an ability to do weird things). Furthermore, if people had to spend more money on food, they would perforce spend less money elsewhere, and so other businesses would decline, and the overall cost of other products would increase since there isn't as much competition, and mind you, paying more for everything else is NOT in the interest of the CEO (But why does he care--he has plenty of $ anyway). Ad infinitum....

Anyhow, solutions to these problems are appreciated, as well as a better way of tackling them. I think there's something I'm missing...maybe I'm off in floating abstractions, but I'm unsure. Is it simply the out-of-context style questioning that is making this so difficult? Is that where I am suppose to nip the question in the butt and ask, "Wait, how did all this happen? How exactly did the corporation become so successful that it bought out ALL other corporations?...etc."

[Inspector]

On monopolies/cartels: (copy and paste from a previous post of mine)

Monopolies cannot be maintained in a free market unless a company is offering greatly superior goods and services than all of its competitors. This kind of monopoly is not harmful and would not be discouraged.

All other forms of monopoly are unprofitable and would eventually bankrupt anyone who is foolish enough to try to maintain one.

This is because since a free market lacks government-created barriers to the entry of markets: the instant someone tries to create a monopoly not based on superior product/services, they encourage others to enter the market and must lose more and more money to lower their prices to maintain the monopoly. If their product is not genuinely superior, they will go bankrupt.

Cartels and syndicates work the same way: a cartel or syndicate attempts to form an agreement wherein the companies involved will try to get above-market prices. This will encourage more companies to enter the market because they can charge lower prices than the cartel and take away their profits. Even if the cartel buys up new entrants, there is nothing stopping still more new entrants from coming into the market. Eventually, the cartel will go bankrupt.

So the highest price that your imaginary monopoly could charge for their product is the price at which any potential competitors could produce it profitably. If they try to charge a higher price than that, then a competitor will enter the market and charge the lower price.

Edited December 28, 2005 by Inspector

[Hal]

How in the world did you get yourself into this mess? I've known some obnoxious people in my life, but what's the deal with you -- you've alienated all of your friends, your parents hate you and won't allow you on their property, not at any price? You've enraged the mall owners so that you are banned from their property, and you've even irritated the owner of the Quickimart so that he puts up a "Nix on Nxixcxk!" sign?

While it is an unlikely scenario, perhaps its not as unlikely as you claim. Since libel and slander would presumably be legal in a laissez faire society due to their not involving force, a newspaper editor who disliked him may choose to run a frontpage story along the lines of "Nxixcxk is a child-molester!" accompanied by a big photo of his face. I assume this would result in a lot of people banning him from their property overnight.

If we eliminate libel/slander, I REALLY wouldnt want to annoy someone like Rupert Murdoch.

[Mod's note: Replies related to libel/slander were moved to another thread...see here. - sNerd]

Edited December 30, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Capitalism Forever]

I'm disputing the underlined claim. Before he acquired the land, the (former) owner of the land may have secured the right to cross Smith's property in order to access the land.

And what if there was no Smith?

Land can be acquired in two ways: 1, by developing, and 2, by purchasing. If you go to the middle of the woods (which nobody owns) and build yourself a home there, it will be illegal for me to build, say, a circular railroad around your property and prevent you from crossing it anywhere.

(Of course, you are likely to build a road to your home anyway, which will secure you the access to your home, but the point is that you don't have to.)

[Capitalism Forever]

The reason is because the problem with such easements is they are fraught with the potential for disputes.

Maybe so, but the public rights of way, just like all other kinds of commons, would be fraught with far more problems. You have something of value, something you use, but you have no control over who else is using it and what those other users do to it, nor is there anyone responsible for maintaining it.

So I have a right to access my property and, as a result, I have a right to an easement over your land in order to get to it. Ok. So exactly where on your property will this easement exist? Can you suddenly change your mind as to where it exists after I have already rearranged the layout of my property based on the location of the old easement?

The legal principle behind these easements is that you cannot perform any action that would result in my becoming landlocked.

This makes it illegal for you to develop the land around my house without agreeing with me on the easement. You have to make me at least one offer that allows me to use my property in the ways I have been using it. If you make no such offer, you cannot build. If you make an offer and I find it adequate, I have to go along with it (since it leaves my rights intact and therefore refusing would deprive you from your rights). If you make an offer but I find it inadequate, our dispute will have to be settled in a court.

Exactly what sort of access must you provide me? For example, if I need to get a truck or tractor onto my property, must you provide a route that is suitable for such vehicles to travel on?

If your property is already such that its use involves the truck or tractor, then yes, because my failure to provide it would prevent you from using your property. If you decide to convert your property after I offer you an easement adequate for your established use of your property, then no, because then it would be your conversion of the property that would prevent my established use of my property.

The idea is: "Whoever claims it first, has it"--not just with regard to the mere parcels of land, but also the manners in which they are used.

[DavidOdden]

And what if there was no Smith?

...

(Of course, you are likely to build a road to your home anyway, which will secure you the access to your home, but the point is that you don't have to.)

Again, you're faced with a choice, though a different one. When you claim the land, you can (and probably should) claim a right of access through whatever land you're planning on trodding across. Because there is no owner of the other land, there is no need to negotiate -- you register the claim with the state, and you're done.

The possibility arises that a not so clever person might forget that detail -- I would say that an explicit mention of access rights should be part of any real estate transaction. Either you explicitly secure that right, or you explicitly refuse to secure the right (and take the consequences).

[Capitalism Forever]

you claim the land, you can (and probably should) claim a right of access through whatever land you're planning on trodding across. Because there is no owner of the other land, there is no need to negotiate -- you register the claim with the state, and you're done.

But the state won't just let you register any arbitrary parcel of unowned land as yours. Property arises from the fact that you have a right to keep the wealth you create; where there is no wealth-creating effort, there is no property. Undeveloped land is worthless in itself. When you build yourself a home, it is primarily the home that becomes your property; the land it occupies comes along with it as a secondary consequence.

So if you approach your home by plodding through the wilderness on no established path, then what you have earned by building the house is: 1, the house; 2, the land it occupies; 3, a right to access the house over any route you might find. #3 is a secondary consequence just like #2; it means that anyone developing the land around your home must offer you at least one route that is suitable for accessing your home without an increase in costs (in terms of traveling time, muscle effort, etc.).