I heard this recently: How can we justify having a government which defends all land in a certain area, without either government ownership of the land or privately contracted and paid for defense?
Basically, say in Objectania, we’ve fully implemented our political philosophy. A voluntarily funded government provides defense and justice. However, in order to claim to be able to defend all of the Island we’ve established Objectania on, wouldn’t that mean the government has a right to that land in the first place? Otherwise, how could it claim to be able to defend it?
Citizenship in Objectania would 1) automatically grant you protection from outside aggressors by the Government and 2) convey automatically to Government the right to land/fight on/use your property in your defense, if necessary.
However, in order to claim to be able to defend all of the Island we’ve established Objectania on, wouldn’t that mean the government has a right to that land in the first place?
A government does not just defend “its land”, it defends the land of its people. The government acts as an agent of the people.
Start with the individuals. Each individual (whether or not a citizen, by the way) has the right to personal self-defense. This right extends to his property, of course. But a need arises to identify proper and improper uses of force. We need government in order to submit the use of force to objective principles.
One extension of this is the need to submit acts of force to public scrutiny. Being concerned with your own defense, you need to know not only that those who would initiate force against you are thwarted (or at least punished) but also that when others use force, it is in self-defense. You need to be able to examine the justifications for each use of force to determine whether it was truly defensive. Anyone can claim self-defense, but part of your right to self-defense is the right to examine it when force is used so you may determine that there isn’t a criminal hiding in your midst. (This, by the way, justifies police entering private property and speeding in exigent circumstances.)
The government is the way to do this. By giving only certain properly trained individuals leeway to exercise force, and subjecting their activity to laws and court oversight, each individual can remain certain that each use of force is strictly defensive in nature.
The government of Objectania is more or less a company instituted for the management of force of arms. Since it requires resources, it will need to charge for its services. It will need to purchase or rent property in order to base its operations. But the literal answer to your question is that the government exists specifically to protect the island - the privately owned property of the island. That any land on the island is privately owned is the government’s justification for existence.
(Clarification: When I use the word “defensive” in this context, I do not imply that it is strictly a post hoc response. Preemptive use of force can be defensive, i.e. non-initiative, if the context warrants it.)
No, the government would not own the land it governs according to rational principles. The government would basically be an agent of the private citizens and would work on their behalf to secure their individual rights. I think the idea that the government would own the land comes from anarcho-capitalists who see the government as protecting its own land, but this isn’t the case for capitalism.
One of Dr. Peikoff’s most recent podcast handled the issue of free riders – the government protecting those who do not voluntarily pay for the government service. In essence, if government protection is like insurance, then the government would have no obligation to protect those who do not pay. However, in a certain geographical area governed by the government, they may decide to protect everyone – whether they paid or not – so that individual rights would be secure in that area.
But of course, the people of that area would have to keep track of what the government does, since the authority to govern that area comes from the people wanting their rights protected. An informed citizenry was at the root of the Founding Father’s conception of proper government, since they are the one’s being protected.
To put it more succinctly, your insurance company – say for your car or for your house – does not own your property, you do, but they have decided to protect it at a cost premium to you. In a capitalist government, it would work pretty much the same way. It would be a way for the citizens to pool their resources, instead of each one going after the bad guys on their own terms.
Citizenship in Objectania would 1) automatically grant you protection from outside aggressors by the Government and 2) convey automatically to Government the right to land/fight on/use your property in your defense, if necessary.
No ownership required.
Protection should not be granted strictly on the basis of citizenship, but on geographic extent defined by borders. If the jurisdiction of the government is a patchwork quilt of properties owned by citizens excluding other properties owned by noncitizens then this creates anarchy and the competing governments situation.
I have never had a problem with government claiming (as being part and parcel of the country) land that is unowned. Like Grames said any exclusion from that could set up a competing governments scenario. Not only that but it would lead to people saying “I don’t support the government of Objectivland so my property is not in Objectivland and is therefore a country unto itself. Further, in my country I am permitted to torture anyone who comes into my country…” I know it is a far fetched example but it is not an impossible one.
I’ve brought this up before and I’ve never been convinced of the wrong headdedness of it… Though almost everyone has said I’m wrong … but…
I believe that the government should own all land not claimed by an individual, but that it shall upon the request of any citizen sell the land that citizen wants at a fair market price (reached through evaluation of the land (dirt) itself, not any “possible” mineral value or future use value).
All the money generated in this manner would go toward the operating costs of the government.
To me this idea is not incompatible with Rand’s idea that the Government is a paid servant of the people. The government is supposed to protect the rights of individuals but it must also protect the territorial integrity of the nation itself, from invasion and the kind of childish secessionists mentioned earlier. So the citizen purchasing the land from the government is in effect paying the government for providing for the security of the land.
Can someone explain exactly where this idea is incompatible with proper government… or not.
I have never had a problem with government claiming (as being part and parcel of the country) land that is unowned.
Why is doing so required for government to function properly? Why does the government have a right, which supercedes the right to property of individuals, to absolutely control unowned land?
I believe that the government should own all land not claimed by an individual, but that it shall upon the request of any citizen sell the land that citizen wants at a fair market price (reached through evaluation of the land (dirt) itself, not any “possible” mineral value or future use value).
Then you don’t believe that the government should own land, you only believe that the government should be the custodian of unowned land. You have not justified the need to sell the land (and your reference to “fair market price” especially one detached from reality – by being based on the price of dirt – frankly does not mean anything. There is no such thing as fair market price for dirt, irrespective of context).
Then you don’t believe that the government should own land, you only believe that the government should be the custodian of unowned land.
Yes, thanks that is a better way of putting it.
You have not justified the need to sell the land (and your reference to “fair market price” especially one detached from reality – by being based on the price of dirt – frankly does not mean anything. There is no such thing as fair market price for dirt, irrespective of context).
I didn’t explain it well. What I meant by the price of dirt is that the government could not turn around and say “Well there might be gold or oil under the surface that we don’t know about so on the off chance there is you will pay 1,000,000 an acre” or “well city X is only 20 km from here and might expand in the next 20 years so we are going to speculatively charge more on that remote possibility.”
Fair market value as is when is is what I was getting at.
The need is, that as the custodian of the land it is not the governments proper place to continue to be the custodian when that land is desired by an individual. Individuals properly own property, governments do not.
What I meant by the price of dirt is that the government could not turn around and say “Well there might be gold or oil under the surface that we don’t know about so on the off chance there is you will pay 1,000,000 an acre” or “well city X is only 20 km from here and might expand in the next 20 years so we are going to speculatively charge more on that remote possibility.”
Okay, but there was reason to believe that there was gold or oil, then the government could right charge a million an acre or whatever it would take to buy such potential wealth, just as a private individual could charge a million an acre. He would set a price based, probably, on his estimation of the profit that he himself could make if he were to exploit the land, and then set the price high enough that he would actually make more money (remember that time is money, so that could be a little less cash but he would have the cash now rather than over a couple of decades). Then the difference would be that the government could not actually refuse to sell the land, but it would have to charge the highest price it could get. That is, after all, what fair market value is.
The need is, that as the custodian of the land it is not the governments proper place to continue to be the custodian when that land is desired by an individual. Individuals properly own property, governments do not.
That doesn’t justify the government charging for something that it doesn’t even own (you just said that governments do not own property). Why should the government charge, as opposed to giving it away?
If you are correct that only an individual, meaning a single human being, can own property, how do you deal with married couples and joint ownership, business partnerships, and corporations owning property. Would you simply say that a business corporation cannot own property (i.e. that business corporation cannot exist)? I’m trying to understand the claim that governments do not own property.
That doesn’t justify the government charging for something that it doesn’t even own (you just said that governments do not own property). Why should the government charge, as opposed to giving it away?
The government is ensuring the security of the property so why should it not recoup some of that cost and in the process help ensure that it has enough funds to maintain its proper functions?
If you are correct that only an individual, meaning a single human being, can own property, how do you deal with married couples and joint ownership, business partnerships, and corporations owning property. Would you simply say that a business corporation cannot own property (i.e. that business corporation cannot exist)? I’m trying to understand the claim that governments do not own property.
I said individuals. And as far as I am aware corporations are owned by individuals and/or are considered individuals before the law in some circumstances if I recall correctly.
Government certainly owns the buildings and lands that it uses in the completion of their proper functions, the rest though they are caretakers of.
Do you have an opinion or is your intent just to ask questions from both sides of the argument?
I’m not claiming that I have all the answers I’m just looking at other options.
The government is ensuring the security of the property so why should it not recoup some of that cost and in the process help ensure that it has enough funds to maintain its proper functions?
That is somewhat different from claiming that the government should actually sell the land. You could get the same effect by charging a flat fee. We must also return to the point that the government has the obligation to perform its function, because it claims a monopoly on the use of force, which means that individuals do not have any choice but to relent to the government. Just as protection of one’s property rights by the police is not contingent on paying for their service, one’s right to claim the unowned is not contingent on paying the government. What would be justified is satisfying some objectively-justified claiming procedure (such as “filing, staking, using”).
I said individuals. And as far as I am aware corporations are owned by individuals and/or are considered individuals before the law in some circumstances if I recall correctly.
However, a corporation can in fact own property: that does not mean that the shareholder’s own the property. The corporation does.
Government certainly owns the buildings and lands that it uses in the completion of their proper functions, the rest though they are caretakers of.
Okay, but that means that that the principle “government cannot own property” has to give way. I suggest that the right direction for correcting the problem is “the government may not act except as necessary”. (Thus, the government may not own except as necessary). It is not necessary for the government to own unclaimed land, in order to be the custodian of that land. It is necessary for the government to own bombers, in order to protect the nation.
Do you have an opinion or is your intent just to ask questions from both sides of the argument?
Do I ever not have an opinion? My point on this last issue is that the concept “individual” does extend to abstract entities, such as corporations and governments, so that it is meaningful to say that the government owns property. The distinction that has to be made is between well-defined entities and undefined ones, such as “the Indians”, or “society”. Saying that “society owns this mountain” is meaningless, because it is impossible to determine what “society” is.
That is somewhat different from claiming that the government should actually sell the land. You could get the same effect by charging a flat fee.
Yes, perhaps that would be a better way, to ensure the government did not become corrupted i.e. charging more and more for the property.
We must also return to the point that the government has the obligation to perform its function, because it claims a monopoly on the use of force, which means that individuals do not have any choice but to relent to the government. Just as protection of one’s property rights by the police is not contingent on paying for their service, one’s right to claim the unowned is not contingent on paying the government.
But unowned does not mean unclaimed. The land has been claimed by the nation and has been protected as such. I still don’t see why a person should not pay a certain amount for the unowned (but claimed) land within his nations borders.
However, a corporation can in fact own property: that does not mean that the shareholder’s own the property. The corporation does.
As I said in certain legal circumstances a corporation is considered the equivalent of an individual.
Okay, but that means that that the principle “government cannot own property” has to give way. I suggest that the right direction for correcting the problem is “the government may not act except as necessary”. (Thus, the government may not own except as necessary). It is not necessary for the government to own unclaimed land, in order to be the custodian of that land. It is necessary for the government to own bombers, in order to protect the nation.
I have no problem with that distinction between what the government owns and what it does not but I still think its stewardship of unowned land within its borders could be reimbursed in some manner.
Here’s a question though. If the government owns and uses a parcel of land (for a military base lets say) and then the base is closed would you not agree that it should be able to sell that land once it is no longer using it?
Do I ever not have an opinion?
I do wonder sometimes
My point on this last issue is that the concept “individual” does extend to abstract entities, such as corporations and governments, so that it is meaningful to say that the government owns property. The distinction that has to be made is between well-defined entities and undefined ones, such as “the Indians”, or “society”. Saying that “society owns this mountain” is meaningless, because it is impossible to determine what “society” is.
… but…
