Private property rights in natural resources

Debates
1

Friends,

I admire Ayn Rand; and want to find out if she every took a position on having Private property rights on natural resources.

I recently read about ‘Georgism’, and I am now convinced that it is not proper to allow private property in land. The assertion is that each human being has equal right to nature and its resources - by virtue of his being born in that nature. However, he is not at all entitled to any product of human effort, unless he earns it by his own effort.

I am open to debating this assertion on the forum, if anyone is interested.

Also, it will be helpful to know if anyone on the forum is aware of AR taking a position on this issue (I know that ‘Ownership of Land’ was discussed in the forum earlier, but I could not find references to AR’s position on this issue).

Thanks!

Owning Land?
2

I recently read about ‘Georgism’, and I am now convinced that it is not proper to allow private property in land. The assertion is that each human being has equal right to nature and its resources - by virtue of his being born in that nature.

Do you have a justification for the claim that any man has a right to a thing? ‘Georgism’ is entirely contrary to Objectivism, because it mistakenly holds that men have rights to things, rather than actions. The idea that the act of being born entitles you to a share of so-called “natural” resources is morally indefensible (why should the involuntary act of being born create a right?). The arbitrariness of assertion that this right pertains specifically to “nature and its resources” can be seen by considering the fact that most men in civilized countries are born in hospitals, but men do not gain a (socialist) right to the hospital because they were born there.

If all men have equal rights to “nature”, then all men have equal rights to the land, and what the land yields. That means that all men have the same right to the bricks and steel that the hospital was built from (since they are part of nature), and of course all men have the same right to the land that the hospital rests on – therefore, any man has the right to destroy the hospital and use the land for growing organic alfalfa. (Of course, all other men have the right to that alfalfa field, not to mention the alfalfa, since the alfalfa is part of nature, and they may graze their cows there).

The first problem with Georgism is that its notion of “what is in nature” is undefined; the second is that the moral relevance of “being in nature” is undefended.

3

I agree with David. If you deny individuals private property to land that action is a denial of all property rights. I would challenge you to name any thing or property that isn’t a part of “nature”. Good luck identifying “supernatural resources”. All of the natural elements harnessed and molded by man are a part of nature, as are the products made as man is in nature as well. The assertion that all men have a right to all resources by virtue of birth in nature is a profoundly anti-life floating abstraction.The further statement that a man is not at all entitled to any product of human effort, unless he earns it by his own effort is completely nonsensical when presented in concert with the above view of property rights. How can any man claim with any sort of validity to own a product of his efforts when he utilized resources in the production that belong equally to anyone who happens to walk up? Such a contradiction in relations would lead to complete paralysis of action. Even one’s own body wouldn’t be owned as it is composed and sustained by “everyone’s” resources. When dealing with scarce resources, which all resources are, following this principle can only lead to death on a wide scale. Man is a rational animal, and such a contradictory principle in action would paralyze the “rational” attribute of man, leaving only animal methods of survival. It would be ridiculous to improve or utilize “everyone’s” scarce resources when that energy and life expended could be seized at any time by multiple and conflicting birthrights. The result would be a primitive existence of predator/prey relationships. Sustenance would be gleaned from the environment through violence or furtive agriculture performed with half of the farmer’s attention focused outward to identify potential “heirs” to the resources he is cultivating. Force would be his only option as he would have to uproot his own efforts and move, kill his competitor, be killed by his competitor, submit to the newcomer’s superior force (slavery), or enslave the newcomer himself. Social organization would be limited to packs of primitives (tribes) temporarily suspending violence amongst themselves but constantly fearful of betrayal when a packmate decided to assert his birthright over any natural resources in his field of vision. If the resources were his from birth then their current configuration as something another made would be irrelevant. Such a state would continue until a group of humans abandoned the principle of collective ownership of resources and agreed amongst themselves to adopt a social ethic harmonious to their nature as rational animals and implemented guarantees amongst themselves that any unclaimed resources discovered could be appropriated as personal property by way of use and improvement, freeing men to produce, improve, and innovate with their resources without constant fear of force from others. Consistent respect and enforcement of property rights would allow the people in such a society to interact as producers and traders.

Here is a relevant quote you requested.

“Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.”

-“The Property Status of Airwaves,”

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 122.

Found here.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/property_rights.html

4

David,

Thanks for your post.

I like your THINGS vs. ACTIONS split, and I would like to clarify my position using this split.

Man has an equal birth-right to a THING that exists in nature without any human action (e.g. uncultivated land, air, water, etc). This is because no one can claim more right that the other man for such a thing - because such a thing existed independent of any human action.

This is my moral defense. Now, if you disagree with this, may I ask you to give me the moral justification for your position?

I will debate on the Brick and Hospital examples later because those involve more complex issues - as these Things have Action embedded in them, and it may be difficult to separate the two.

However, I first seek agreement on a basic assertion: Man has equal birth-right on things that exists in nature without any human action (e.g. land in its original/natural state)?

5

Man has an equal birth-right to a THING that exists in nature without any human action (e.g. uncultivated land, air, water, etc). This is because no one can claim more right that the other man for such a thing - because such a thing existed independent of any human action.

You have not proven this assertion: i.e. that no man should have any right to things that exist without human action.

6

Castle,

I did not make my position amply clear.

I agree with you that everthing around us in nature. And I do not want to imply common property on everything. My point is to abolish private property on things that exist without human action (e.g. uncultivated land). These things are what I mean by ‘nature’.

Also, I fully recognize pvt. property right on the wheat that was grown on land (if rent for the land was given to the society). I belive this is fair, because we rewarded individual effort as well the society for the use of its common property.

Hence, if I deny individuals private property to land, that action IS NOT a denial of all property rights.

Also, many thanks for the reference of the quote! But I disagree with it: Those who apply knowledge and effort to a resource can only have a moral right to the value added by them. But, is there any moral justification for their owning the full resource?

7

I admire Ayn Rand; and want to find out if she every took a position on having Private property rights on natural resources.

All resources are natural, and we have only one way of using them: through reason. Without private property, that, and implicitly the survival of independent, rational individuals would be entirely impossible. That’s especially true in the case of land, which is vertical space. Isn’t it obvious that men need space, to exist?

Man has equal birth-right on things that exists in nature without any human action (e.g. land in its original/natural state)?

I believe you are paraphrasing Genesis there (no, not the band, the Bible), not a new belief system called Georgism. The very similar claim in the Bible is based on God’s will. Do you agree with that, or is there some other basis for your claim, in Georgism?

8

My point is to abolish private property on things that exist without human action (e.g. uncultivated land). These things are what I mean by ‘nature’.

Every atom in everything material that you own would have existed without human action.

9

You have not proven this assertion: i.e. that no man should have any right to things that exist without human action.

But that is not what I am asserting…I am saying no man should have more right than the other man –> equal rights for the society.

Also, I am not against property rights to the value a man can add to such ‘original-state’ things…

10

But that is not what I am asserting…I am saying no man should have more right than the other man –> equal rights for the society.

Also, I am not against property rights to the value a man can add to such ‘original-state’ things…

Well, those assertions then. Why should anyone have any rights whatsoever?

11

Every atom in everything material that you own would have existed without human action.

I really like this statement, and I will think and respond to this a bit later.

But I feel that we may be going into unneccasary complexity here - atoms are not the proper unit of analysis for this debate.

But I will get back.

12

All resources are natural, and we have only one way of using them: through reason. Without private property, that, and implicitly the survival of independent, rational individuals would be entirely impossible. That’s especially true in the case of land, which is vertical space. Isn’t it obvious that men need space, to exist?

I believe you are paraphrasing Genesis there (no, not the band, the Bible), not a new belief system called Georgism. The very similar claim in the Bible is based on God’s will. Do you agree with that, or is there some other basis for your claim, in Georgism?

Dear Jake,

I do not want to debate what Georgism says. I just want to debate my basic assertion. (Georgism, Bible, etc may say the same things, but those are irrelevant at this stage of the debate).

Also, can you support and clarify your statements in your 1st para, as I did not understand them fully.

13

Man has an equal birth-right to a THING that exists in nature without any human action (e.g. uncultivated land, air, water, etc). This is because no one can claim more right that the other man for such a thing - because such a thing existed independent of any human action.

This is my moral defense. Now, if you disagree with this, may I ask you to give me the moral justification for your position?

This is a good illustration of why one must approach ethics based on fundamental principles (which Georgism fails to do). To put the matter plainly, “morality” refers to those principles which a man should follow in making choices in his life. Whether something is to be evaluated as morally good or bad is determined by reference to the facts of reality and an ultimate standard, namely, the life of the individual. I will refer you to “Galt’s Speech” in Atlas Shrugged and the essays “The Objectivist Ethics” and “Man’s Rights” in Virtue of Selfishness for a more detailed explication of how rights pertain to one’s freedom of action (and not an entitlement to a thing).

However, I first seek agreement on a basic assertion: Man has equal birth-right on things that exists in nature without any human action (e.g. land in its original/natural state)?

No, you cannot get that agreement. First, rights do not emerge from the fact of being born. Rights are a fact of the nature of man. Second, a right is, specifically, the right to make a choice and act on that choice. Third, rights do not conflict. The justification of rights is that they are those conditions that are necessary to man’s survival qua man (that is, as a reasoning being, as opposed to a brute existing by force). To be a man implies to have rights.

Therefore, one has the right to claim for one’s own survival an object that is unowned. And one has the right to keep that object which one has claimed. If the desired object is owned by someone else, one has the right to attempt to persuade the owner to transfer ownership to you, and if you succeed, you have the right to keep that object. Once a metaphysically-given object is taken possession of, it becomes that man’s property until he relinquishes ownership of it.

Ultimately, you will have to come to grips with the Brick v. Hospital problem. If you say that a man has no right to the physical substance underlying his creation, then “property rights” are a nullity – any man would have the right to claim the physical substance of a hospital, and no man would have a moral claim to keep the physical bricks and steel in the form of a hospital.

14

If there was one person on the planet, he would not own the planet, just as two people could not lay claim to a half-and-half split. They could never see all of their “property”, let alone make any use of it. This is why every resource starts logically as unowned rather than mutually owned. If someone seeks to make use of an unclaimed resource(on unclaimed land), they may claim as much as they can use on a first-come first-served basis regardless of whether their claim constitutes an equal share. “But there would be monopolies and people would claim more than they could earn through their own effort!” Look around. There were some power struggles in such frontiers as the American west, but the injustice you might percieve can be discounted if one simply considers that no one has the right to come upon free, unowned land, and that those who did were simply lucky. Luck cannot be rationed without rights violations, so the question is, which alternative is worse? If that isn’t enough, consider the modern world. I defy you to name a resource in today’s world which can be monopolized without employing (government) theft. It is not a coincidence or the result of any legislation that there are no such resources. And if someone managed through some superhuman feat of business prowess to bring something like oil under his control, good for him. Nobody has an inherent right to oil. Reality has proven time and again that just as “Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it.” (Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shurugged, Money Speech), neither will land or anything on it, in it, or above it.

15

David,

I am still not clear how you are refuting my claim and its morality. I would read again the references you provided. However, I am not seeking a detailed explication unless I am told the basics of the argument. Can you or anyone refute my basic claim - or accept it otherwise? Right now, I think, you are making lot of assertions about Rights - without giving a supporting justification.

e.g how would you support your assertion: “First, rights do not emerge from the fact of being born?” Please respond in the context of the birth-right that I am talking about (to make the discussion more specific), because i agree with your asserition for most other rights .

Also, I propose to discuss the Brick v. Hospital problem later - since it in no way interferes with our debate on my basic assertion - because we need to prove right or wrong based on logic, rather than on consequences.

16

I do not want to debate what Georgism says. I just want to debate my basic assertion. (Georgism, Bible, etc may say the same things, but those are irrelevant at this stage of the debate).

Sure. It’s wrong, because you are mis-using the concept rights.

Here’s your statement: “Man has equal birth-right on things that exists in nature without any human action (e.g. land in its original/natural state)”

By the only definition I’m familiar with, rights are not something that is a consequence of birth, or refer to objects in nature.

If you’re not using the Objectivist definition, then your concepts are not defined, so the statement is meaningless. On top of it, you’re refusing to clarify what you mean by rights. I asked you whether you mean the command of God, you’re saying it’s irrelevant. How is where these rights come from irrelevant to a statement about rights?

Also, can you support and clarify your statements in your 1st para, as I did not understand them fully.

I can’t find anything unclear in my post. What didn’t you understand?

17

I am still not clear how you are refuting my claim and its morality.

You have not supported your claim. You simply state that “Man has equal birth-right on things that exists in nature without any human action (e.g. land in its original/natural state)”.

That’s an arbitrary assertion for which you have offered no reason. You have not even offered a reason why man should have any rights at all.

18

Jake,

Let me try and define Rights: Rights on something are moral/legal claims on that thing.

The definition that you provided is not a definition, but a statement about rights. I can elaborate if needed.

You are currently defining rights by making certain debatable statements;and then asserting that the statements are true by definition. And then you are suggesting that since my statements are not as per the definition, hence they are wrong.

I urge you to not think of any ‘given’ definition of rights, but to just thinks of rights simply as ‘fair’ claims; and then debate on the topic. Please do feel free to challenge me here.

19

You have not supported your claim. You simply state that “Man has equal birth-right on things that exists in nature without any human action (e.g. land in its original/natural state)”.

That’s an arbitrary assertion for which you have offered no reason. You have not even offered a reason why man should have any rights at all.

I did support my claim in one of my earlier previous posts. Here is it again:

Assertion: Man has an equal birth-right to a THING that exists in nature without any human action (e.g. uncultivated land, air, water, etc).

Support: Since these things exist independent of any human action, no one person can have a bigger claim than the other over these things –> Equal rights to everyone for all for such things.

Clarification: The equal right is only upon the original-state thing, but not on any value added by individual effort.

Also your second point: ‘Why man should have any rights at all’, has already been covered in AR’s book Virtue of selfishness (Man’s rights), and I have no disagreement there .

20

Support: Since these things exist independent of any human action, no one person can have a bigger claim than the other over these things –> Equal rights to everyone for all for such things.

What is the basis for claiming that human creation is required to establish rights?