There are two ways to enjoy the rights of ownership of any given object. The first way is if one legitimately, unequivocally, and absolutely owns an object, then he or she should enjoy the full rights of its ownership. Ones labor falls under this category. As a corollary to this, capital and fruits of ones labor also fall under this category.
The second way is if one pays dues to the rightful owner to enjoy exclusive rights. For example, renting an RV gives you an expectation of security and privacy while in the RV.
The question posed at this juncture is what kind of enjoyment of rights of ownership is land ownership? Is it the first way or the second way? To answer this, we consult the ancients for wisdom. In particular, we refer to John Locke's 2nd Treatise
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm...
We begin with what people are familiar with: homesteading. Chapter V section 27 discusses the process and principle. Essentially, the principle of homesteading guarantees that people enjoy the rights of ownership to land that they have appropriated. It articulates that they should enjoy the rights in full and therefore they should remain unmolested by others when exercising those rights. That is, no one should take the land from them by force or destroy their possessions in that land. The important point to note, however, is that Locke ends the section with the phrase “at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.” He repeats this phrase or a variation of this phrase several times. For example, in chapter V section 33 “Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough, and as good left.” This condition is the Lockean Proviso.
The reason for Locke's emphasis of this point is clear when one reads the chapter in its entirety. Locke begins the chapter in section 25 with God (or 'nature' for those who prefer) “has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common.” This statement is a universal truth. The ownership of land is not transferrable and cannot be changed by the State or any individual or corporation. Its ultimate owners are all mankind and all mankind are heirs to the land.
In discussing homesteading, he was explaining that if land is in abundance, men can appropriate land and treat it as their own. However, this initial enjoyment of the rights of ownership lessens in degree proportional to the scarcity of the land. That is, as the demand for the land increases, the strength of the argument for appropriation decreases. Ultimately, land is never and can never be truly absolutely owned by any one individual, corporation or State. It remains the ownership of all mankind.
We are now in a position to ask our main question: what kind of enjoyment of rights of ownership is with respect to land? It is of the second kind. Ones enjoyment of rights to ownership of land is established by effectively renting from all mankind -- or for practical purposes, all mankind local -- a unit portion of what mankind owns. When the demand for that unit of land is nil, no amount is owed. This is simply what homesteading is.
On the other hand, when the demand rises, an injustice is created; that is, ones exclusive use of the land is excluding others from using the now in-demand unit of land. To correct the injustice, compensation has to be made to everyone around for the use of the land. To determine the amount of compensation that has to be made, consider how much someone else who was excluded would be willing to pay for renting the same unit of land. This value happens to be the free market value of the land rent. Hence, the just compensation is that land rent. This rent belongs to and should be distributed to everyone because everyone is the rightful owner of the land. A common misconception is that the rent becomes funding for the State. This is not so and shouldn't be so.
- poikilos
No comments:
Post a Comment