"Public" Property

[Green Capitalist]

I am interested to know what Ayn Rand said about public property. There is a chapter about it in "The Virtue of Selfishness", where she writes about how it creates a problem because it belong to everyone and no one...

Anyone remember more specifics?

cheers

(Fixed typo in book title - sNerd)

Edited March 18, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Maarten]

Besides, there is no such thing as the public. It's usually just means that some group controls it at the expense of the rest...

[DavidOdden]

I am interested to know what Ayn Rand said about public property. There is a chapter about it in Selfishness the unknown ideal, where she writes about how it creates a problem caus it belong to everyone and noone...

Sounds like a blend of "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal". The 10th chapter of CUI, "The Property Status Of Airwaves", discusses the "public property" question extensively, and the next chapter, "Patents And Copyrights" discusses it a bit, followed in ch. 22 "The Cashing-In: The Student 'Rebellion'" dealing with state universities. In other places in her writing, the term comes up always in a disparaging manner -- as Maarten said, she held that there is no such thing as public property, which embraces contradiction. See for instance CUI 128 "Since 'public property' is a collectivist fiction, since the public as a whole can neither use nor dispose of its 'property,' that 'property' will always be taken over by some political 'elite,' by a small clique which will then rule the public—a public of literal, dispossessed proletarians."

[dondigitalia]

Here are a couple of quotes:

So much for the relationship of "human" rights to property rights.

Since "public property" is a collectivist fiction, since the public as a whole can neither use nor dispose of its "property,'' that "property" will always be taken over by some political "elite," by a small clique which will then rule the public—a public of literal, dispossessed proletarians.

If you want to gauge a collectivist theory's distance from reality, ask yourself: by what inconceivable standard can it be claimed that the broadcasting airways are the property of some illiterate sharecropper who will never be able to grasp the concept of electronics, or of some hillbilly whose engineering capacity is not quite sufficient to cope with a corn-liquor still—and that broadcasting, the product of an incalculable amount of scientific genius, is to be ruled by the will of such owners?

That article has such a bounty of information on the idea of public property, that you should really try to read it in full. I just chose one quote of many.

As to the question of what ideological policy should properly be adopted by the administration of a state university, it is a question that has no answer. There are no solutions for the many contradictions inherent in the concept of "public property," particularly when the property is directly concerned with the dissemination of ideas. This is one of the reasons why the rebels would choose a state university as their first battleground.

A good case could be made for the claim that a state university has no right to forbid the teaching or advocacy of any political viewpoint whatever, as, for instance, of communism, since some of the taxpaying owners may be communists. An equally good case could be made for the claim that a state university has no right to permit the teaching and advocacy of any political viewpoint which (as, for instance, communism) is a direct threat to the property, freedom, and lives of the majority of the taxpaying owners. Majority rule is not applicable in the realm of ideas; an individual's convictions are not subject to a majority vote; but neither an individual nor a minority nor a majority should be forced to support their own destroyers.

On the one hand, a government institution has no right to forbid the expression of any ideas. On the other hand, a government institution has no right to harbor, assist, and finance the country's enemies (as, for instance, the collectors <cui_260> of funds for the Vietcong).

The source of these contradictions does not lie in the principle of individual rights, but in their violation by the collectivist institution of "public property."

This issue, however, has to be fought in the field of constitutional law, not on campus. As students, the rebels have no greater rights in a state university than in a private one. As taxpayers, they have no greater rights than the millions of other California taxpayers involved. If they object to the policies of the Board of Regents, they have no recourse except at the polls at the next election—if they can persuade a sufficient number of voters. This is a pretty slim chance—and this is a good argument against any type of "public property." But it is not an issue to be solved by physical force.

That's pretty much all that last one had to say about public property, so if that's all you're interested in at present, it might not be worth it to read the whole thing.

[Proverb]

When discussing capitalism with people who hold statist principles, besides the fact that I'm usually met with a kind of 'ethical' resistance, I hit a stumbling block when the concept of 'public' property comes up.

Saying that it is a contradiction in terms is obviously not a complete argument, though true, and my problem is that I don't know where to go from there.

The biggest question I'm asked in opposition of the thought of having all private property is, "who would own the roads?" Now, I kind of have a rough idea as far as that goes: I think that the people who would want roads, for business or other things, would fund and maintain roads while allowing a 'public' person the privilege of using the roads they built out of the possibility of trade and interaction. Again, kind of rough, but I think I'm on the right track.

The next biggest question is the that of the ownership of land. I understand that much of the unutilized territory within the borders of the United States is 'owned'' by the government. I also understand that in a capitalist society the government is unable to 'own' land in this fashion. I am familiar with the concept of not calling land "property" until it has been utilized, I believe this is part of the Lockean theory of property. I am not, however, conceptually equipped to defend/discuss this principle.

The question I am unable to combat is, "What if someone owned a swath of land that split a major land mass in half or encompassed someone else's property, if that person was not willing to sell, is that not a violation of rights?"

I think it's really a matter of understanding the large scale functions of a capitalist society and as they compare to the current state of affairs such as "Public Property." Which, incidentally, is such a contradiction in terms that I am astonished that it is such a widely accepted concept today.

I just keep getting bombarded by hypotheticals that continually run around each attempt to defend private property. I feel like I'm missing some important principle in this respect. I think I will Google "Lockean" right now.

Any comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Edited April 5, 2006 by Proverb

[softwareNerd]

There was an earlier thread about roads, that might be of interest.

There is also an earlier thread about property encirclement and easements.

As for polemic, my suggestion would be to back off the difficult cases and convince your opponents of the easier ones, like rolling back the Mass. healthcare statute.

[Proverb]

Thank you very much nerd! I feel the search option is a little laking and I didn't mean to start a rehash topic.

[NewYorkRoark]

Thank you very much nerd! I feel the search option is a little laking and I didn't mean to start a rehash topic.

I have a similar problem but a different hypothetical: water and land. How can one privatize and entity that moves freely from one property to another? I believe there was a breif discussion regarding this subject in another topic, but I was unable to find it.

Also, just for the sake of clarification, New York City has "air rights" for buildings, but "air rights" does not refer to the air, it just refers to the space in the air. For example, an owner may have 1,600 feet of air rights which allows him, as of right, to build two more stories. That doesn't mean he owns the air molecules above his building, it just means he owns the space.

Thanks,

Casey

P.S. I believe some made points that we already bottle water and thus privatize it. But obviously, I'm not talking about drinking water and you can't expect whole masses of ocean, lake and river water to be bordered up, regulated and pumped from one property to the next. Likewise, you can't expect the erection of bio-domes (thus privatizing the air inside) all across the world - and with air - there will still be air moving freely above and around the biodomes.

Edited April 20, 2006 by NewYorkRoark