I’ve always considered the most moral society to be one based on private property. Would a truly moral government have to purchase from private land-owners for it’s own property? Or would there be certain areas designated strictly for the government? It would seem if it were the latter, that this would be an initiation of force by the government. This is just something I’ve been thinking about the past few days, as I debate more often with Anarcho-Capitalist types. I know there is another topic on the subject of establishing a moral government in progress right now, but I think this is unique enough a topic to warrant it’s own thread.
I would think it would have to purchase or rent the property off a private land owner.
If the government purchases property, it ceases to be private property. Some people say that the government may never purchase anything. That it all must be leased. There is no justification for this renting approach. The key is not whether the government owns the property, but whether what it owns is for the objectively proper function of government.
As for original ownership. We have to first assume that the thing is unowned…let’s say unowned land. So, let’s say a town is being set up in the wild west, and property owners mark out plots according to some rules, and there is still unowned land for new settlers. Now, the townsfolk decide to build a jail for their sheriff. They build it on a plot that is as yet unclaimed. I cannot see anything wrong with that.
I do not have a problem with government owning land, and actually believe that all “unowned” land in a nation would by default belong to the government.
Having said that, the government would not be able to restrict the purchase of any land (at fair market value) that it did not physically need to use for legitimate purposes.
Money from this land sale would (in my thinking) have to go toward the operating expenses of the government.
I do not have a problem with government owning land, and actually believe that all “unowned” land in a nation would by default belong to the government.
Having said that, the government would not be able to restrict the purchase of any land (at fair market value) that it did not physically need to use for legitimate purposes.
Money from this land sale would (in my thinking) have to go toward the operating expenses of the government.
If Government owns all “unowned” land, how can it be objective in determining a fair market value, as a non-neutral party?
If Government owns all “unowned” land, how can it be objective in determining a fair market value, as a non-neutral party?
It is fairly easy to determine what market value a property has. Any real estate agent could tell you that, or you could just get some historical data on sales in the area yourself.
Hell, the price could be set by an independent third party if you are worried about being ripped off by the gov.
I do not have a problem with government owning land, and actually believe that all “unowned” land in a nation would by default belong to the government.
By what right?
By what right?
Not as a right but by convention. The alternative is a free for all that I believe would quickly denigrate into violence, coercion, force and intimidation. Not everyone is so firmly committed to not initiating force.
I’ll try to make my point clearer.
The government would “own” the land as a placeholder, and be bound by law to sell it at a fair price (which as I said could be determined by a third party) to anyone who paid for it. The land the gov uses and occupies for legitimate purposes withstanding.
This would ensure that several people could not claim the same piece of unowned land, or that someone could claim some part of another’s land.
Also the ability to pay for land is a much more effective way to ensure that the person actually plans to do something with it, whether that something is build a house, a business or to raise chickens, rather than just claiming it because he/she can.
It would definitively establish boundaries between properties and register ownership in a real, legal and tangible way.
The whole process of purchase could be done without involvement of any government bureaucracy simply by outsourcing the sale of govt land to a third party, if the concern is government involvement in the process itself.
If the concern is that government would have power just through the “ownership” of unused land I’m not seeing how a moral, objective government would or could parlay that ownership into coercive force.
WTF, Zip?
There was plenty of completely unowned land in recent history. Texas, in fact, had just that for a very long time.
There was not, contrary to your baseless conjecture, “violence, coercion, force and intimidation.”
I do not have a problem with government owning land, and actually believe that all “unowned” land in a nation would by default belong to the government.
I agree with you, if by this you mean that “unowned” land is temporarily held by the government with the purpose of morally and objectively distributing it into private hands, i.e. homesteading. This is a proper function of government.
I don’t think the government should OWN it. I think the Government should simply serve to validate claims of ownership in cases of dispute.
WTF, Zip?
There was plenty of completely unowned land in recent history. Texas, in fact, had just that for a very long time.
There was not, contrary to your baseless conjecture, “violence, coercion, force and intimidation.”
http://www.glo.state.tx.us/archives/virtmuseum/blood.html
The Regulator Moderator War was a feud which took place in Shelby, Harrison, and the surrounding counties. This bloody conflict lasted more than four years starting in 1839 and finally ending in 1844. Initially the conflict involved the many fraudulent land certificates that were being issued in the area, as well as instances of theft and murder. Very soon however, the struggle between these two factions grew into who could take control of the area by any means necessary.
Beg your pardon? 
The basic concept is that property is owned specifically, not generally, thus “the public” does not own anything. Property need not be owned solely by a single human, and vast amounts of property are co-owned exploting the JTWROS concept (90% of married folks who own anything will, I bet, know what I mean). Partnerships can own property, and corporations can too. A government can, as well – The Government of the US can quite correctly own property. The question that should be asked is, when and why should a government own property. Broadly, the answer is “in order to perform the functions of government”. Government-owned property is private property – it is owned by the government (not every citizen), meaning that the government has the right of control (exclusion and disposal).
The fundamental difference between government-owned property and individual-owned property (or couple-owned, or partnership-owned) is that the choice to own needs to be justified according to law, refering to whether it is necessary given the function of the government. This is a specific instance of the principle that by nature, government is only permitted that which is allowed, and citizens are only forbidded that which is prohibited. If it is necessary to purchase a plot of land to build a police station, in order to protect the rights of people, then it should be done, and the government should not be compelled to live as perennial tenants (especially given the serious conflict of interest problem that would arise if the government had to sue the landlord owning the courthouse for breach of contract).
http://www.glo.state.tx.us/archives/virtmuseum/blood.html
Beg your pardon?
Oh no, something bad happened.
It was not the norm. And, note, the issue involved was fraud - by the government, or by someone forging deeds to land. That is not from the nature of it not being owned, its from the fact that there were swindlers. Nothing about the government owning the land would change the possibility of THAT.
Nothing about the nature of unowned land (within the government’s jurisdiction) necessitates armed conflict.
Edit: There certainly was not any sort of mass wars in Texas when the unowned land was homesteaded. All the government did was recognize claims to land; it did not own it. That is fine and proper.
Oh no, something bad happened.
Suddenly dismissive?
There was not, contrary to your baseless conjecture , “violence, coercion, force and intimidation.”
Care to rephrase that then? *emphasis mine.
It was not the norm. And, note, the issue involved was fraud - by the government, or by someone forging deeds to land. That is not from the nature of it not being owned, its from the fact that there were swindlers. Nothing about the government owning the land would change the possibility of THAT.
Nothing about the nature of unowned land (within the government’s jurisdiction) necessitates armed conflict.
Edit: There certainly was not any sort of mass wars in Texas when the unowned land was homesteaded. All the government did was recognize claims to land; it did not own it. That is fine and proper.
I still disagree that the land should be given as free. Land has value and should be treated like it does, and the controll of unclaimed land does not necessarily lead to governmental abuse, especially if dealing with an Objectivist government.
Suddenly dismissive?
Care to rephrase that then? *emphasis mine.
I still disagree that the land should be given as free. Land has value and should be treated like it does, and the controll of unclaimed land does not necessarily lead to governmental abuse, especially if dealing with an Objectivist government.
The government has no right to unclaimed land.
The government has no right to unclaimed land.
You are missing my point. The government holds the land in trust for whatever citizen decides to buy it. It “charges” the fair market value for the land and that money goes to funding the legitimate functions of a non tax based government.
It’s a logical, rational and simple solution to not only the legal procedure of land purchase but to some government funding as well.
So it holds the land in a trust for some citizen, but that citizen has to purchase it? WTF?
No, its not proper for the government to sell unclaimed land. You still haven’t provided any reason this needs to be done.
You still haven’t provided any reason this needs to be done.
Yes I have, that you choose to disagree doesn’t change that fact.
Yes I have, that you choose to disagree doesn’t change that fact.
The government needs to register property: true.
The government needs to have jurisdiction over unowned land: true.
The government needs to charge for it: never supported except by it’d be nice to have that to get money for the government. Thats not a good case for charging “fair market value” (whatever the hell THAT is.)