God Fearing Atheist

In many books i have read, the authors suggest that a grouding for the initial acquisition of private property is an incredably difficult task. I submit that its a good deal easier than that; almost too easy.

In contractarian terms, we should let people do whatever they want insofar as they make no one worse off because of those actions. This same criteria is then applied to ownership in things by asking, simply, "does exclusive use (property) make someone worse off?". If using a piece of land, and having people not interfere with me, is sufficent to own something, this is the only question we need to answer.

Lets take an example. There is island populated by two men, Smith and Jones. Each own 1/4 of the island. Smith, one day, decides he would like more land for whatever reason (lets say hes a big fan of golf, and would love 18 holes of his own). So,he wonders off into the wilderness, fences another 1/4, and constructs his course. Is Jones, by virtue of Smith fencing off a piece of land, worse off than he was prior? Is his antecedent condition worsened in the slightest? Was the status quo ante better for him than his current position? I think the answer is clearly in the negative. Suppose instead that Smith had wondered into the middle of a bustling city. Are we to say that these people, presumably there for years, are making him worse off?

Acquistion is justifed if there are good reasons to let people do as they please. Although that is another post, i believe we have those reasons.

pug846

God Fearing Atheist said:

Why?

Why? Who decides if someone will be worse off? What if millions will benefit? Why should I accept this criterion? Why should I work hard to own any land then, given that it can be taken away at any time through no fault of my own?

God Fearing Atheist

See my post on contractarianism.

MortalWombat

It depends. Is there a river running through that part of land that Jones gets his water from? Is there some population of insects that live there that pollinate Jones' crops? If Smith just fenced it off and did nothing else, then Jones probably wouldn't notice any difference. But people who fence off pieces of land usually do so in order to use it in some way, which may affect people in other areas.

99Percent

The right of land property comes so because it is protected by a government who is sovereign over all the property, sovereign because it is the recognized government by all its citizen.

When government is first established all land property is under the care of the government. Property and natural resources are then auctioned off to its citizen. Sometimes property can be so abundant (like in the 1800's America) that it was given away by how much they were willing to take care and fight off indians and wild animals.

In retrospective, the indians should have recognized the legitimacy of the American government and the government should have recognized the Indians original legitimacy of their own property. Unfortunately for the indians, the idea of individual right of property and the need for government was just too advanced for them to understand.

Once all property is in the hands of individual ownership, the value of property can be ascertain by the free market. If you own too much property you cannot put to correct use and its costing too much to maintain you will want to sell it. And if a property becomes valuable because of human effort put into it (such as building of houses, mines, dams, etc) then the price of property rises naturally. The price of property never rises just because, but because of human effort put into it.

New potential properties are always being developed with new technologies, such as radio frequencies, the human genome, etc. It is important to recognize them so that the government can take sovereignity over them and auction them off for individual sale.

Arrowman

Yes, but then there is the concept of "economic rent" which as I understand it, is based on the idea that property (in particular, land) can in fact rise in value, disproportionately to other property, through no effort or input on the part of the owner. The difference between the "original" and "improved" values being economic rent. (Economists, help me out here).

So - for example - I own a large slice of country property. The government decides to run a new highway past that property. The result is an increase in the value of my property, for it may now be the site of petrol stations and other facilities. (Let us assume that any decrease in the property's value as farmland, because of the highway, is heavily outweighed by the increase.)

My neighbour, whose land is equivalent to mine in every sense, except it is not located on the highway, does not enjoy the same increase in value. My increase is "unearned" and due to investment by the government.

This argument is the basis for property taxes - I will end up paying an increased property tax, in effect paying back my economic rent to the government.

Further, to those who argue that this is unfair because the tax takes no account of my ability to pay (eg elderly people living on expensive inner city land, with no income to pay the property tax) - the counter argument is that appropriate property taxes on economic rent would in fact have a moderating effect on property prices themselves (especially for aforementioned inner city land). It is a fallacy to look at the current value of a property and argue that that is the value on which property tax would be paid - in fact, if there had been a decent property tax in the first place, the value would never have risen that high. (So when proposing a new property tax, one might face a transition issue in the interests of fairness)

I'm no economist but I read about this the other day, in an article by a moderate to left-wing writer. I think it's a sound argument for property taxes, based on cold hard economics and practicality, and possibly more appealing to the right wing / conservative than other "pay according to your ability" arguments which are ususally used in support of this sort of tax.

God Fearing Atheist

Oh, without a doubt. There can be (and often are) third-party effects, but what im considering is acquisition *as such*. Does acquiring land, as such, worsen the lot of anyone? I dont think so.

God Fearing Atheist

Thats wrong on two counts:

1)Property rights (which i intend in a strictly moral sense) exist independent of the State (as i attempted to show).

2)Not all citizens recognize the State as a legitimate soverign. I, for one, do not.

God Fearing Atheist

Economic rent is the difference between the return on a factor of production, and the cost nessecary to keep it producing.

In neoclassical terms, economic rent doesnt exist under perfect competition....supply and demand bids everything down to marginal cost.

-GFA

Arrowman

I would say that Smith is "worse off" because he no longer has the option to acquire additional land beyond the remaining 25% of the island (except with the agreement of Jones, ie via sale). His (Smith's) options have been reduced. A small thing, perhaps, but it's there nevertheless.