Would Government Property Still Be " Private "?

Political Philosophy
21

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.)

What happens when something of value is given away by the government? It breeds false “rights”, it fosters laziness and teaches entitlement.

“I want my free healthcare because I’m entitled to it. I want to have the same standard of healthcare living in butt-hole nowhere as you have living in Superhighdensity City X”

The second you start devaluing things and giving them away is the instant people start expecting you to do it for and with more things.

22

There are two types of unowned land. Land which has never had an owner, and land which has but for whom the owner has passed on, without an heir.

Land which has never had an owner has never been bought or sold before. Fair market value in real estate is determined largely by the buy and sale price of comparable properties in the same region. In a region where land has never had an owner, it is unlikely that such land is surrounded by owned land, and thus the surrounding properties are likely never to have been bought or sold either. Having never been bought or sold, such land has exactly $0 in fair market value.

Which is a ridiculous value to use because the land may be worth BILLIONS once developed for some purpose.

And what happens to unowned land in the latter case, where it was worth something, but was owned by someone without a will, spouse or descendants?

Should a factory owned by a childless single man, like Hank Reardon had he died during the factory riot, become Government property on his death?

What happens when something of value is given away by the government? It breeds false “rights”, it fosters laziness and teaches entitlement.

“I want my free healthcare because I’m entitled to it. I want to have the same standard of healthcare living in butt-hole nowhere as you have living in Superhighdensity City X”

The second you start devaluing things and giving them away is the instant people start expecting you to do it for and with more things.

Neither healthcare nor land is government’s to give. With healthcare, government gets it from forced extortion of its citizens wealth. For unowned land, where would government get it?

23

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.

That is a position, but it’s unjustified and wrong from the perspective of Objectivism. Unowned land does not belong to the government, in fact it is unowned. The only proper function of the government in this case is establishing an orderly and objective means for people to lay claim to land (see for example the rules for claiming land in the US under the Homestead Act). Because it is not the property of the government, the government cannot sell it and it cannot give it away, given that both concepts presuppose prior ownership. Rather than owning the land, the government has custodianship over the land (just as a parent doesn’t own the child, it has custodianship over the child). This is the right way to deal with unowned land, in which case conventions of governmental impropriety play no role in the disposition of unowned land. This gets everything that you wanted to get with the idea of government owning all land by default (anathema to the concept of limited government). I recommend the discussion of this in CUI on p. 123-4.

24

There are two types of unowned land. Land which has never had an owner, and land which has but for whom the owner has passed on, without an heir.

Land which has never had an owner has never been bought or sold before. Fair market value in real estate is determined largely by the buy and sale price of comparable properties in the same region. In a region where land has never had an owner, it is unlikely that such land is surrounded by owned land, and thus the surrounding properties are likely never to have been bought or sold either. Having never been bought or sold, such land has exactly $0 in fair market value.

Which is a ridiculous value to use because the land may be worth BILLIONS once developed for some purpose.

Actually I would argue that a Fair market price would be quite cheap for the unowned land surrounded by unowned land even if it did have Billions of dollars worth of oil (or whatever) under it precisely because nothing had been done with it.

And what happens to unowned land in the latter case, where it was worth something, but was owned by someone without a will, spouse or descendants?

Should a factory owned by a childless single man, like Hank Reardon had he died during the factory riot, become Government property on his death?

So what happens today? I believe the assets are sold at the market rate. I honestly don’t know where the money ends up after that. :lol:

Neither healthcare nor land is government’s to give. With healthcare, government gets it from forced extortion of its citizens wealth. For unowned land, where would government get it?

Healthcare is not a good example, because it is paid for but the example of entitlement stands. All you have to do is talk to someone on the Left of the political spectrum to see that.

25

You brought up healthcare as a comparison example, zip.

26

You brought up healthcare as a comparison example, zip.

I know, and I was admitting that it was a poor example as it relies on government using funds that were already stolen from the citizenry.

You are allowed to admit you’ve created a bad analogy here aren’t you? :lol: :stuck_out_tongue: :smiley:

27

I know, and I was admitting that it was a poor example as it relies on government using funds that were already stolen from the citizenry.

You are allowed to admit you’ve created a bad analogy here aren’t you? :lol: :stuck_out_tongue: :smiley:

But your objection to land not being owned by Govt was that it would foster entitlement, so if an entitlement program is a bad comparison, then why can’t land simply be unowned until someone claims it?

What happens when something of value is given away by the government? It breeds false “rights”, it fosters laziness and teaches entitlement.

“I want my free healthcare because I’m entitled to it. I want to have the same standard of healthcare living in butt-hole nowhere as you have living in Superhighdensity City X”

The second you start devaluing things and giving them away is the instant people start expecting you to do it for and with more things.

When land is unowned, if someone claims it and files a claim, they didn’t get it *FROM* anyone, they just got it. Its like walking down the street and finding money. If nobody says, “hey that was my money, I dropped it”, you can pick it up and take it away and its yours by right of finders keepers.

28

But your objection to land not being owned by Govt was that it would foster entitlement, so if an entitlement program is a bad comparison, then why can’t land simply be unowned until someone claims it?

It’s not a bad comparison because it’s an entitlement program, as a matter of fact I said the entitlement ideal stands (in my opinion) the comparison was bad because the healthcare is something you have already paid for in taxes stolen from you by government.

When land is unowned, if someone claims it and files a claim, they didn’t get it *FROM* anyone, they just got it. Its like walking down the street and finding money. If nobody says, “hey that was my money, I dropped it”, you can pick it up and take it away and its yours by right of finders keepers.

I understand what you are all getting at I just think that it is an incredible waste. The Government in an Objectivist nation would not have any means of financial support, and my plan would help do that without coercion, without taxation.

29

The Government in an Objectivist nation would not have any means of financial support, and my plan would help do that without coercion, without taxation.

Except that their initial supposed ownership of land is by force, not by right.

30

I understand what you are all getting at I just think that it is an incredible waste. The Government in an Objectivist nation would not have any means of financial support, and my plan would help do that without coercion, without taxation.

The Government in an objectivist nation would be funded by voluntary payments by a society that recognizes that the job gov’t does legitimately is crucial to their survival.

Which is why I suggest that anyone who DOESNT contribute to the cost of government not be given a say in how that government operates. He who would take something for nothing from Gov’t has no right to tell Gov’t how to run, IMO.

31

Except that their initial supposed ownership of land is by force, not by right.

No.

If you claim the land under your free for all system have you obtained it by force? The government ownership is an acknowledgment of national sovereignty, which is in itself an internationally recognized “ownership” agreement.

The Government in an objectivist nation would be funded by voluntary payments by a society that recognizes that the job gov’t does legitimately is crucial to their survival.

Which is why I suggest that anyone who DOESNT contribute to the cost of government not be given a say in how that government operates. He who would take something for nothing from Gov’t has no right to tell Gov’t how to run, IMO.

I understand and agree but I’m not against the government providing for it’s own support as long as that provision does not contravene Objectivist principal of non initiation of force.

32

The government ownership is an acknowledgment of national sovereignty, which is in itself an internationally recognized “ownership” agreement.

The right of the government to tax, restrict and conscript is also an internationally recognized “right”, but that doesn’t make it an actual right. The fact that governments are “given the right” to appropriate all land by force and allocate it according to social policy does not make it right to do so. That completely misconstrues the proper function of government. Under objective law, the sole function of government is to objectively control the use of force in order to protect people’s rights. Unlike a person, the government has no natural rights such as the right to pursue any enterprise it wants.

It’s obvious that governmental expropriation of land is by force. Suppose a person and the government seek to claim some unowned land – how do we decide whose land it really is? Under your system, the man cannot appeal to an objective authority to resolve the dispute, and the government simply uses force to enforce its appropriation of the land.

33

The right of the government to tax, restrict and conscript is also an internationally recognized “right”, but that doesn’t make it an actual right. The fact that governments are “given the right” to appropriate all land by force and allocate it according to social policy does not make it right to do so. That completely misconstrues the proper function of government. Under objective law, the sole function of government is to objectively control the use of force in order to protect people’s rights. Unlike a person, the government has no natural rights such as the right to pursue any enterprise it wants.

It’s obvious that governmental expropriation of land is by force. Suppose a person and the government seek to claim some unowned land – how do we decide whose land it really is? Under your system, the man cannot appeal to an objective authority to resolve the dispute, and the government simply uses force to enforce its appropriation of the land.

Right then. Here is a hypothetical for you. Country X with all it’s recognized borders becomes Objective Republic X and the government of that country ceases to own “unclaimed land”. Country Y to the north is paying attention and decides to either claim the unowned land for itself or to encourage its citizens to move in and claim land, which if I’m not mistaken with an Objective immigration policy they would be permitted to do. Then these people could decide that they want to be a part of country Y again and announce that in keeping with O’ist principals they have the right of property and can do so, thus effectively granting ownership to of their property to Country Y.

Like it or not, agree with it or not we live in a world that recognizes sovereignty in certain ways, that the community of nations, of which any O’ist nation would be a part is accustomed to doing things in certain ways.

While I do not deny the possibility that an Objective government will be formed some day (sooner rather than later please :lol: ), that government and the nation of which it is a part will out of necessity HAVE to play by certain established rules, and work slowly within the “system” to alter perceptions.

To think that this radical method of government and complete minarchy will be accepted without the batting of an eyeball is naive. To think that established governments will feel an obligation to accept it is also naive especially if that government has some reason to think that the O’ist policy will place it in danger, threaten it’s existence or offer an any excuse to expand its own power.

34

How can a proper government (i.e., one that exists solely to protect individual rights) exert authority over totally unowned land? There are no individual rights concerning that land to protect.

Just because other governments “recognize” a certain boundary does not mean that the government’s power extends to that boundary. Perceptions do not make it so.

Whose rights would be violated by Country Y’s citizens moving into the unowned land? Whose rights would the government of Country X be protecting by prohibiting that move?

~Q

35

Country X with all it’s recognized borders becomes Objective Republic X and the government of that country ceases to own “unclaimed land”.

This question sorta belongs in the “how to make a transition” subforum, which we probably don’t have here. Before we go invoking Y, let’s consider how an Improper Government X can become POG X (I don’t mean “what actions can bring about this change in government”, I mean “given such a change, how does it happen”). The government will have a bunch of stuff that it improperly controls. Examples would include (developed) real estate and money taken by force from individuals, by court-ordered confiscation or general taxation methods. Some of this property is traceable, and can (and should) be returned to the actual owner, but some of it cannot be returned to the rightful owner. The remainder has become unowned property – it’s not limited to land – and the government finds itself the custodian of such property; its obligation is to dispose of that property if and when a valid claim is made. Going back to the good old homesteading days, the US government was the custodian for land that individuals could claim as their own, following certain objectively stated rules. This is the correct relationship between government and unowned land. Unreturnable property would then leave government control according to objectively stated and justified law: this does not mean sudden abandonment.

Country Y to the north is paying attention and decides to either claim the unowned land for itself or to encourage its citizens to move in and claim land, which if I’m not mistaken with an Objective immigration policy they would be permitted to do.

The latter, yes (it’s not clear to me that a foreign government automatically has the right to act as an individual with respect to country X). So there could be a large-scale Newfie immigration. However, they would have to compete with the native Michiganders for these claims, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect all of the newly available land in Michigan to be claimed by foreigners – that presupposes that Newfies are really clever and fast, and Michiganders aren’t. But it’s your hypothetical, to let’s assume this happens, eh?

Then these people could decide that they want to be a part of country Y again and announce that in keeping with O’ist principals they have the right of property and can do so, thus effectively granting ownership to of their property to Country Y.

Not exactly (as in, “at all”). When a person from country Y acquires property Z in country X, they don’t get to change what country Z is in. Z is in country X. Well, they can decide or wish that they were still part of country Y, but wishing doesn’t make it so. And none of this gives any support to the idea that a government should own all property not owned by an individual. Furthermore, there is no general and conventional recognition of such a position, and even though there is very little unowned land in the US, as far as I know it is not the case that the government owns all unclaimed / unowned land, so you can’t even say “even though it’s wrong, that’s just the way it is” – I’d need some substantial evidence to persuade me that it actually is that way. US law actually prohibits the government from claiming ownership of land off of the planet.