Ownership of Land

Political Philosophy
1

My question (perhaps this belongs in questions about Objectivism, but it is aimed squarely at political philosophy, so I feel it belongs better in this area) is fairly simple:

How do you come to own land? I mean this in the economic sense of the word land, meaning not labor, or capital. Whales, rocks, the moon, stars, real estate (in terms of a plot of regular-old land, not counting the house or whatever), are all land. How do you own it?

For example, how if I find an island, or what I think is an island, does that give me the right to claim all of it as mine? What about if I go all the way around it, map it, and then build a small house on it, even going as far as to set up a security system and arm myself against intruders? Do I own it now? It doesn’t seem to me that you do, not in a moral sense. All you’ve done is seal it off from others and threaten them not to step foot on it or else you’ll shoot them.

Obviously the critical point is that the government grants you a contract to it. However, there seems to be a problem. How does the government get to give you a contract? Its simply claimed that land as part of its territory, which amounts to much the same problem as with the individual ownership problem. I understand that a government has to have a claim to the use of retributive force in a given geographic area. But does that then grant it the ability to grant by fiat an economic value to someone?

I have read some about Georgism, and the idea that land is by right the common resource of everyone (since the government does not have the right to grant economic favors to some rather than others, and there is no other way to objectively decide ownership of land) sounds rational. The solution he proposes is fairly simple. Since it is self-evident that some people need to be able to keep other people from laying claim to a certain area, they have to pay for the right to exclude everyone else. The amount is the land rental value of the land, which is basically the value of controlling who can use the property. The receipts from this land value fee/tax would be distributed to the rest of the population (or used to pay for the government in the first place) so as to give every member of society their lost value (from not having been the recipient of government’s graces).

I’m not particularly interested in the topic of the funding of government, since I think a fixed fee of a percentage of the value of all contracts to be enforced by the government (or the payment of all costs in enforcing any given contract that doesn’t have that insurance) is perfectly justifiable and would suffice for that task. No, my main line of inquiry is about the claim that land (land not actively used by someone, or land which hasn’t been claimed) is justifiably the common “property” of all, or the “property” of none, and that the only way to have a claim to property is for government to make an arbitrary decision to grant one person’s claim and exclude everyone else from the land, thereby conferring upon the recipient of the claim economic advantage over others. Is that true, and if that is the case, shouldn’t that economic advantage be reclaimed and given back to everyone else?

There is very little as far as I have read on this subject (initial claim of ownership over land) in Rand’s books, and it doesn’t seem to me that the above argument interferes with any claim of Objectivism (since it says that the actual products of someone’s efforts, such as a house or the gold from a mine, is under the rightful claim of the producer, since he produced it). That’s why I’m posting this topic, to discuss it with others familiar with the philosophy.

2

Suppose that I’ve paid the rent for the land and built a house on it. Georgism states that I own the product of my labor (i.e. the house) but not the land. Then suppose that I’m suddenly unable or unwilling to pay the rent for the land, according to georgism this would mean that I don’t have the right to the land but I do have the right to the house. This is absurd, since the house and the land are inseparable. Also, how would one determine the rent of the land? The value of the land would have to be determined through the free market, but since the house and the land are inseperable the value would be that of the house and the land not the land itself.

3

Read “The Property Status of Airwaves”.

4

I’ve read “The Property Status of Airwaves” (I googled it, thanks DavidOdden for pointing me toward it) but unfortunately it doesn’t answer my question, at least not fully.

Laissez-Faire, my response to your supposed contradiction is that he does not own the land his house sits on, he owns the house. If he defaults on his land rental payments, then someone could use the land beneath his house for something, so long as it does not disturb his house in any way (since then it would damage his property). Similarly, if he “owns” a field and has a farm on it, then theoretically someone could use it if he isn’t paying rent, but they could not disturb his crops (again, that would infringe on his property rights). In general, this person would have a very difficult time doing so, probably impossible, and so people wouldn’t mess with such used areas. But if he has a fallow field somewhere and has never used it, or used it long ago but nothing is left except weeds, then someone could use it without messing with his property at all. The key is that while practically people won’t mess with anything that is actively being used, only the things someone has created are actually off-limits. And the main issue is that anyone who refuses to pay their fee to retain control over the land will have a difficult time selling their house if it does not come with ownership of the area around it. Since that would very negatively affect their home’s market value, they would have to keep up with the payment.

“The Property Status of Airwaves” was an interesting read, but as I said before, it didn’t really address the question. Her example of why this idea is ridiculous is that a concert pianist can own his body and the piano but not the airwaves of the concert hall, and therefore has no right to give a concert without a license from the government. That’s ridiculous. He can give a concert. But someone else could start banging on the drums somewhere nearby and he couldn’t stop him, since he hasn’t claimed exclusive use of the area. If, however, he rented the concert hall for the night, then he could prevent such an event from happening. The key difference is not that you cannot use any “common” property without a license. It is that you cannot make others not use it without a license. In the case of a broadcast, you own the content of the broadcast (and so it cannot be reproduced without permission), but you don’t have the right to force others to not use the same frequency you are using within the range of your transmitter, because you haven’t actually done anything to claim the right of exclusive use. Of course practically no one would want to use the same frequency as another since both would be garbled beyond recognition, but that doesn’t prevent it. I can yell over you on a street corner and you can’t sue me for it, unless you have claimed exclusive privilege to speak on that particular street corner.

The idea still seems valid to me. Also, the objection that you can’t know rents without prices is false. If you charged the full rental value then the price of all land on the market drops to zero. So you can use the market price as a barometer for the rental value (you can’t charge 100% of course, that’s cutting it too close to going negative with prices, but you could almost certainly claim 90+% without going to negative prices, this is all that you can reclaim in an orderly fashion and so is all anyone could think of having a right to claim anyway, so it doesn’t violate the principle). The great thing about a land value fee/tax is that it doesn’t change economic considerations whatsoever, it doesn’t make your house less valuable, or the school, doesn’t change whether I want a piece of land or not (since the land rent is still exactly the same degree higher for valuable land vs. bad land as it would be with prices), doesn’t effect labor, productivity, or capital, its completely free of adverse economic effects (except depriving the owners of property from gaining benefit from simply owning property without doing anything useful at all with it).

5

Alright, well apparently that reading was too difficult. Focus on p. 123.

The problem with your question is that it makes no sense without a context. The one thing that’s clear is that this is a purely hypothetical context, like “Imagine an Objectivist Earth, 300 years ago”. In the context “The world as it really is”, you negotiate a transfer of property with the current owner, and there you have it.

OTOH, imagine the context of lawless barbaria – no government or legal system to enforce rights. You mark off what land you think you can defend, and then defend it, hoping that no invading horde with superior power will take it from you. (Your hopes will probably be dashed). Abstractly you had the right to that land, but that’s not a lot of comfort when 200 Mongols on horseback take it from you.

The first decision you have to make is whether the context that you’re describing is “civilized society” or “lawless barbaria”. Once you understand the nature of government, you ought to see that the question “how do you own land” makes no sense divorced from this context.

6

If I can grow crops and they’d be mine then can I mine gold and that would be mine? What if I build a gold mine, does that make me the owner of the mine? Suppose I build a house on the land and then through gardening work make a beautiful garden, does that make me owner of the garden? My point is that there’s no essential difference between these examples. Also, how would you determine the value of the land?

Just out of curiosity, would it be possible for someone to rent all the land around your house (and keep you out) simply by paying a higher rent?

7

Actually, it would be possible to purchase or rent the land surrounding someone’s land and exclude them from using their land. If you have land that is surrounded by someone else’s land, you need (in the title to your land) “easement rights” so that you may use the other person’s land for specific purposes (such as walking through it to get street access).

8

Actually, it would be possible to purchase or rent the land surrounding someone’s land and exclude them from using their land. If you have land that is surrounded by someone else’s land, you need (in the title to your land) “easement rights” so that you may use the other person’s land for specific purposes (such as walking through it to get street access).

And?

This is a fundamental difference between the way things are and the way things ought to be. Yes, one person could conceivably ensure another could not walk onto his own land. That means he would have to fly or whatever. The real lesson is not “Oh my goodness! How unfair!!!” but rather “buyer beware”. I would not dream of buying a piece of land without negotiating access rights in perpetuity.

Of course this speaks to a certain ideological prejudice against people though. What is the purpose for this refusal? Why would someone do it? Do you believe most people would behave in such a manner?

When land is unowned, unclaimed or whatever the proper way of owning it is controlling it.

9

The fact of the matter is, it would require a thinking shift amongst most people. They aren’t used to doing this due diligence themselves, because someone else does it for them. Much like food and drug safety, house inspections (during construction), etc. Yet another thing that government has assumed authority over and few can imagine it *not* doing today.

10

How does one come to own land?

“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said “This is mine,” and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society.” - J J Rousseau

There would be thousands like him. The pioneer landlords would then start the first housing and mortgage market.

I’ve no real knowledge of land ownership. I would think it’s somewhat like this.

Someone might want to correct me if I’m wrong.

11

How does one come to own land?

“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said “This is mine,” and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society.” - J J Rousseau

There would be thousands like him. The pioneer landlords would then start the first housing and mortgage market.

I’ve no real knowledge of land ownership. I would think it’s somewhat like this.

Ownership of land is founded on two facts. First, man has the right to the product of his mind. Thus you may create a value which is properly yours, which is yours by right. Second, men have chosen to live in civilized societies because this allows man to live according to his nature, by reason rather than force – because the government will use force if necessary to protect his rights. Thus the government enforces his right to the value which he has created.

The creation of concepts of landlordship or mortgage are much later economic developments, which crucially depend on the premise that rights are protected by the government.

12

Technically, land isn’t a product of the mind. Land already exists.

How did the first man acquire a piece of land and convinced his fellow men that this is his land? Based on a legal contract?

Or perhaps at the beginning, all land belonged to the government and it was the government who designated respective areas of land to the people.

13

Technically, land isn’t a product of the mind. Land already exists.

How did the first man acquire a piece of land and convinced his fellow men that this is his land? Based on a legal contract?

Or perhaps at the beginning, all land belonged to the government and it was the government who designated respective areas of land to the people.

Land exists, but it isn’t moved into any production until a mind decides to produce from it, correct?

14

How did the first man acquire a piece of land and convinced his fellow men that this is his land? Based on a legal contract?

In the U.S., many times a legal title was granted to a settler who first possessed the land by squatting. It’s called the “squatter-to-owner” process. An example of this would be the Homestead Act of 1862. The person who had possessed the land for five years and had made certain improvements to it, obtained legal ownership. The Government didn’t own the land, they defined property rights in areas that were previously ownerless.

15

Technically, land isn’t a product of the mind. Land already exists.

The conversion of dirt to property requires the application of the mind in various ways. For any naturally occurring object, you must evaluate it to determine whether it is a value, that is, something that you should act to gain and keep. You must also do something – which requires figuring out – to possess the land. In a legal context, that includes a method of signaling possession, such as staking.

How did the first man acquire a piece of land and convinced his fellow men that this is his land? Based on a legal contract?

I take it you’re asking a historical question. There is no record – that preceded man’s ability to write by quite some time. It presumably arose in the context where man needed to own land to exist, thus when plants were domesticated and agriculture was invented. The act of taking land, clearing it, tilling it and planting makes the act of possessing self-evident. We have no idea exactly how peaceable land tenure came about: presumably some men were rational and understood the benefits of agriculture, and others were not. It is difficult to take another man’s land (much easier to steal his crops), and no doubt there was a lot of force going on. Civilized societies arose rather quickly in response to the needs of stable land ownership. Concepts of contract presuppose a legal system, and in fact land ownership concepts developed much earlier than contract concepts.

16

SD26, one can own a land without transforming it into a producing factory.

I think Dadmonson explained it nicely.

17

SD26, one can own a land without transforming it into a producing factory.

I think Dadmonson explained it nicely.

I’d go with Dave for explaining it too.

Does it have to produce? It just has to have rational value. One man’s garbage is another’s jewel.

Yes, I only mentioned production in my post before this one. My error.

18

I think Dadmonson explained it nicely.

The explanation depends on a prior moral and legal foundation; so once you understand and have those basic property concepts, then you have to ask “How exactly should the government perform its function of recognizing property rights, in the context of unowned land? What are appropriate objective procedures?”. There is no conflict between these two replies. We can also look at the content of the Homestead Act to see whether it was the best law possible. Or, we can look at the not so hypothetical question of how to claim new unowned land, for example on the Moon or elsewhere.

19

Or, we can look at the not so hypothetical question of how to claim new unowned land, for example on the Moon or elsewhere.

I’ve a couple questions on the issue of land ownership and the above quote is a good place to start: How would one claim new, unowned land, for example on the moon? Does one need to actually go there and “squat?” Suppose I do - I travel to the moon and stake out my claim. Do I need to stick around? Suppose I stake out the entire hemisphere which is visible from Earth, claim it as my own and don’t do anything to it, then travel back to Earth. It’s a value to me - I like the view of it from Earth. Is that enough to make an objectively valid claim of ownership?

20

How would one claim new, unowned land, for example on the moon?

What does it mean to “claim” land, absent a specific political and legal context? The concept of “claiming” something only makes sense with respect to the law. If we assume that there is no law, then your question reduces to the more general question of rights under barbarism. In barbaric Central Asia ca. 3,000 BC, you might grow a few bushels of barley and raise a couple of horses, which are your by right, but how will you manage to keep that which is yours? By stealth, or buying a sharp sword and cutting off the head of any interloper to tries to take your stuff.

This is the essential reason why we live in civilized societies, under the rule of law, which limits the use of force – it precludes the use of force in day-to-day interactions between citizens. You cannot presuppose that such a system of excluding force exists when civilization itself does not exist.