Jim Hlavac
| Politics Home The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Fundamentals Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
Economic Theory
| Economic Theory |
Land is often said to be somehow different than other economic
goods. And you can see that primarily in South America, and other
regions of the world that are in constant discussion over so-called
land reform. What they are really discussing is which part of the
government should control the land. Not once are they really talking
about getting the land into the primary ownership of individuals.
Why? Well, it's said that the land is the patrimony of the people.
The ownership of land is necessary because food -- a basic
requirement of life -- is only grown on land. And here "land" can be
seen to be water, air, minerals, and the surface. All the surface of
the earth can be considered "land," because we can use it to produce
something.
Land can be owned in any number of ways. Oddly, the more
diverse the ways of land ownership in a country the more economic
activity there is. Places were land is all owned by the government
have lower economic production than places were more land is
owned by individuals. And you can see a sliding scale of this: the
more individual ownership the wealthier a nation.
There is a religious sense that we are stewards of the land -- in
that the land remains even when we are dead, and existed before
our birth. However, all land is "owned" in the sense that all land is
put to some use by people. Not an inch of the world today is not
without the presence of people in one way or another. Thus the
question is not whether land should be owned -- all of it is. And
with technology the sea is now thought of as ownable as well.
Hence the territorial limits nations set on bordering oceans and seas.
The sole source of the means of survival are in the land. All
people have the right to survival. Therefore all people have a right
to land in one way or another. So the only question is how to
organize the "ownership" in the sense of using the land.
The Divine Right of Kings of course puts the ownership -- or the
control of use of land -- directly in the hands of the state. That the
name of the state is not King -- but instead, Central Committee -- is
of no difference to the underlying reality that the state is claiming
the land and thus everyone becomes dependent on it for survival.
The only way for individuals to have control over their own destiny
is to have control over the land individually. Private property is the
only way to ensure that individuals can exercise the rights to labor
and survive uninhibited by someone else.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a group of people
owning land in tandem. A village common for instance, or a public
park. There is nothing inherently wrong for a government to own
land, such as national parks and land for military bases. The only
thing wrong is when a government either forces everyone to own
the land together, or to prevent someone from owning land
separately.
goods. And you can see that primarily in South America, and other
regions of the world that are in constant discussion over so-called
land reform. What they are really discussing is which part of the
government should control the land. Not once are they really talking
about getting the land into the primary ownership of individuals.
Why? Well, it's said that the land is the patrimony of the people.
The ownership of land is necessary because food -- a basic
requirement of life -- is only grown on land. And here "land" can be
seen to be water, air, minerals, and the surface. All the surface of
the earth can be considered "land," because we can use it to produce
something.
Land can be owned in any number of ways. Oddly, the more
diverse the ways of land ownership in a country the more economic
activity there is. Places were land is all owned by the government
have lower economic production than places were more land is
owned by individuals. And you can see a sliding scale of this: the
more individual ownership the wealthier a nation.
There is a religious sense that we are stewards of the land -- in
that the land remains even when we are dead, and existed before
our birth. However, all land is "owned" in the sense that all land is
put to some use by people. Not an inch of the world today is not
without the presence of people in one way or another. Thus the
question is not whether land should be owned -- all of it is. And
with technology the sea is now thought of as ownable as well.
Hence the territorial limits nations set on bordering oceans and seas.
The sole source of the means of survival are in the land. All
people have the right to survival. Therefore all people have a right
to land in one way or another. So the only question is how to
organize the "ownership" in the sense of using the land.
The Divine Right of Kings of course puts the ownership -- or the
control of use of land -- directly in the hands of the state. That the
name of the state is not King -- but instead, Central Committee -- is
of no difference to the underlying reality that the state is claiming
the land and thus everyone becomes dependent on it for survival.
The only way for individuals to have control over their own destiny
is to have control over the land individually. Private property is the
only way to ensure that individuals can exercise the rights to labor
and survive uninhibited by someone else.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a group of people
owning land in tandem. A village common for instance, or a public
park. There is nothing inherently wrong for a government to own
land, such as national parks and land for military bases. The only
thing wrong is when a government either forces everyone to own
the land together, or to prevent someone from owning land
separately.