Should land be a commodity?

[civver_764]

Let's have some discussion on this matter - do you think land should be a commodity bought and sold by humans?

I think firstly a common misconception needs to be dispelled:

Your house and your land are not the same thing. Ergo, just because you can't own the land your house is on, that doesn't mean people can just walk into your house whenever they feel like. There is a difference between owning something and having privacy. If the house is allocated to you, only people with your consent are able to occupy it.

I, being a socialist, don't think it should a commodity, and should be 'owned' by communities as a whole, who then distribute it based on democratic(and I don't mean the modern representative democracies, I mean Athenian style direct democracy) decisions at a local level. It is simply the best way I can think of to cater to everyone's needs. It leads to unnecessary suffering otherwise.

I'm eager to here your thoughts, and please guys let's try to be civil.

 

[Integral]

I do believe that land should be a commodity. The only difficulty is the initial assignment of property rights.

 

[JohnRM]

People don't own land now. When you have to pay property taxes to the government, you are just renting the property from the government. It is the same as renting an apartment. If you don't pay your rent (or property tax) you are evicted. Your property can also be taken away from you if the government thinks there is a better use for it.

What I would like to see is the abolition of all property taxes.

I would, however, like to see a study done to determine whether a claim system can be devised where people would not purchase property, but would claim unused property. People would apply for a land grant and fill out a form to identify how much land would be needed and for what general purposes (residential, farming, commercial, etc.) and the land could be granted to people by a panel tasked making such determinations.

Areas would be zoned, as they are now, for specific purposes and classes. Inner city areas would have smaller residential zones, varying commercial and industrial zones, and few farming zones. The rural areas would have larger residential zones, farming zones, and others, as necessary. Certain areas would be zoned as public spaces. Others would be zoned for alternative lifestyles, such as the intentionally homeless, areas in the west for tribal societies, and other special zones.

I am not sure what a fair payment system would look like for this model.

 

[Racsoviale]

Im from Europe so ofcoarse im for more goverment control

 

[Zelig]

Land is not a commodity to be bought and sold, it's something to be taken by force, and held by the strongest.

 

[Ayn Rand]

civver 764, here in Britain there are 60 million people and less than a million farm owners. To give everyone their own farm [which is "fair"] we would either need to shrink all the farms down in size to a subsistence level, else we would need to invent, out of thin air, enough space for 59 million more farms.

Land therefore needs to be allocated. Simply collectivising the land does not escape this problem - that there is not enough of it to fairly divide it up between everybody.

As you clearly believe in property [as you believe in collective ownership of property and therefore you believe in collective property], then why not just have private property, allocated through the markets, rather than collective property, allocated through the government.

Given that reality is the limiting factor here, does your method really offer any benefit or create anything that cannot be achieved through the free markets? [Except some nominal concept of "fairness"?]

 

[JollyRoger]

I agree with Ayn Rand - no collective ownership of property. All property curently owned by a limited liability entity (aka collective) should be forfeited to the state and sold to the highest non-entity bidders.

 

[Ayn Rand]

I agree with Ayn Rand - no collective ownership of property. All property curently owned by a limited liability entity (aka collective) should be forfeited to the state and sold to the highest non-entity bidders.

A joint stock company is not collectivised property. Each share in the company is registered to an individual owner, and to only one owner, and has to be by law. The individual properties are therefore joined, but not collectivised, as no one part of the company stock is owned by more than one individual [ie no stock is collective property].

 

[Shadylookin]

what problem are you trying to solve with your solution? Unless you have a strong desire to have strangers occupy everyone's backyard I don't see why you think "communal" property is better than the status quo.

 

[civver_764]

civver 764, here in Britain there are 60 million people and less than a million farm owners. To give everyone their own farm [which is "fair"] we would either need to shrink all the farms down in size to a subsistence level, else we would need to invent, out of thin air, enough space for 59 million more farms.

This is another common misconception. Just because land is dealt out by democratic bodies does not mean everyone gets the same size lands, it would cater to their needs/professions. Someone living by themselves wouldn't be given the same amount of land as a family of six, for instance, in the same way that someone working for Dunder Mifflin paper company would only be given living quarters, whilst a farmer would be given adequate farming space.

As you clearly believe in property [as you believe in collective ownership of property and therefore you believe in collective property], then why not just have private property, allocated through the markets, rather than collective property, allocated through the government.

Because private property is unjust. It caters to those with the most advantages in life and leaves so many living in conditions like these:

Spoiler :

Why should we tolerate this kind of injustice?

Given that reality is the limiting factor here, does your method really offer any benefit or create anything that cannot be achieved through the free markets? [Except some nominal concept of "fairness"?]

Yes, it is clearly a progression as human beings. 'Free market' sounds good and all, but just like people can't own other people, they cannot have a sovereign right to land.

 

[JollyRoger]

A joint stock company is not collectivised property. Each share in the company is registered to an individual owner, and to only one owner, and has to be by law. The individual properties are therefore joined, but not collectivised, as no one part of the company stock is owned by more than one individual [ie no stock is collective property].

Wrong. Most entities can have their shares owned by other entities.

But you missed my point - these entities enjoy state-sponsored limited liability. They are artificial creations designed to collectively amass wealth while limiting liability. If liability is limited, so should rights be. An individual is subject to unlimited liability, so his rights should not be all that restricted. Ownership of property should be reserved for those willing to accept unlimited liability rather than those that seek protection from the state.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I tend towards a Georgist position. I don't think land can be true owned, by either individuals or the state. Individuals can have much stronger claims to it though, through homesteaders rights. They owe the community compensation for the monopolization of natural resources, but that can take many forms. Taxes ought be charged for the privilege of having the state defend property rights, and the rents thus collected should be distributed to those most harmed by the monopolization. However those who wish to bypass the middle man by being benevolent enough to the community that no one would want to trespass against them and state protection would never be needed should not be forced to pay. The state would not confiscate private property for lack of tax payments, but might publicize the lack of payments and encourage the homeless to take up residence on untaxed land.



I'm for considerably higher land value taxes, but not a larger or more obtrusive government. I personally oppose the concept of zoning districts.

 

[Perfection]

Basically you'd need to completely overthrow society as we know it to implement what you advocate, that is an extremely daunting task with a huge chance of something going horribly wrong and a definite period of societal upheaval. I'm unconvinced that your system would be worth that.

I'd be much more amenable to solutions within current societal structures, for example subsidized housing and public housing projects.

 

[Ayn Rand]

This is another common misconception. Just because land is dealt out by democratic bodies does not mean everyone gets the same size lands, it would cater to their needs/professions. Someone living by themselves wouldn't be given the same amount of land as a family of six, for instance, in the same way that someone working for Dunder Mifflin paper company would only be given living quarters, whilst a farmer would be given adequate farming space.

I accept that your system would take a more nuanced approach, such as you describe. However, the mechanism of allocation would still be subject to the same limits and constraints of reality. What happens when all the land is allocated, but the population is growing? And in countries like Japan, where land is scarce?

You have no more power to give everybody a farm or a home than that provided by reality. I support the free market because once the land has been fully allocated, a competition will emerge in which transfers of land occur where the innefficient sell their land and the efficient buy it.

Because private property is unjust.

No, reality is unjust. It is reality that compels us to own property and cultivate it. Whether we do it collectively or privately, we still have an absolute need for property, our lives and progress depend on it. Necessity drives us to own and use property, and reality imposes limits on the property available for owning and using - collectivising it does not change the necessity or the limit.

It caters to those with the most advantages in life and leaves so many living in conditions like these:

There are other causes for such problems. Overpopulation, corrupt government, lack of security, no historical development of capital, war and so on.

What makes you think that private property is the only or even the main cause of their problems? And why do you think that collectivising property will end all these other human problems - such as overpopulation or corruption?

Why should we tolerate this kind of injustice?

I don't think we should tolerate poverty which is why I support capitalism.

Yes, it is clearly a progression as human beings. 'Free market' sounds good and all, but just like people can't own other people, they cannot have a sovereign right to land.

Two different things. People don't need to own other humans as slaves, but they do need to own property if they are to survive - that is a necessity imposed on us by reality.

There is no escaping the fundamental problem - someone has to own the land, and there is a limit to the land that can be owned. Someone or other is going to miss out in some way, and it is the fault of reality, not of the property system. The public interest is best served by maximising the use of land, which is done best by a system of private ownership and exchange rather than public ownership and allocation.

 

[civver_764]

I accept that your system would take a more nuanced approach, such as you describe. However, the mechanism of allocation would still be subject to the same limits and constraints of reality. What happens when all the land is allocated, but the population is growing? And in countries like Japan, where land is scarce?

You have no more power to give everybody a farm or a home than that provided by reality. I support the free market because once the land has been fully allocated, a competition will emerge in which transfers of land occur where the innefficient sell their land and the efficient buy it.

Overpopulation is a problem, but I fail to see how the free market makes it better. What checks does the free market provide to make sure land is fully allocated to everyone who needs it?

I'm sure homeless and impoverished citizens of urban areas would love the idea of a free house in more scarcely populated areas.

No, reality is unjust. It is reality that compels us to own property and cultivate it. Whether we do it collectively or privately, we still have an absolute need for property, our lives and progress depend on it. Necessity drives us to own and use property, and reality imposes limits on the property available for owning and using - collectivising it does not change the necessity or the limit.

You're right, it's a necessity, which is why it's imperative that everyone has access to it and not just the people with the most capital.

There are other causes for such problems. Overpopulation, corrupt government, lack of security, no historical development of capital, war and so on.

What makes you think that private property is the only or even the main cause of their problems? And why do you think that collectivising property will end all these other human problems - such as overpopulation or corruption?

That's not my point. People live there because they can't afford to live anywhere else.

I don't think we should tolerate poverty which is why I support capitalism.

Elaborate.

Two different things. People don't need to own other humans as slaves, but they do need to own property if they are to survive - that is a necessity imposed on us by reality.

I don't see how because property is necessary it follows that it has to be dealt out through "free market" methods.

There is no escaping the fundamental problem - someone has to own the land, and there is a limit to the land that can be owned. Someone or other is going to miss out in some way, and it is the fault of reality, not of the property system. The public interest is best served by maximising the use of land, which is done best by a system of private ownership and exchange rather than public ownership and allocation.

If land is owned by the collective human race(in which case it isn't really owned at all) then no one is being left out. Overpopulation is not that big of a problem yet and if it were the free market is certainly incapable of dealing with it. More urban centers would just have to be created.

 

[kosiosko 1]

Because private property is unjust. It caters to those with the most advantages in life and leaves so many living in conditions like these:

Spoiler :

Why should we tolerate this kind of injustice?

Yes, it is clearly a progression as human beings. 'Free market' sounds good and all, but just like people can't own other people, they cannot have a sovereign right to land.

its actually an interesting problem .... as things stand now in the west we manage city planning issues by regulation and they work fairly well to cater to conflicting needs , a English farm, new housing . new industrial parks and of course open space/country side and heritage ... all compete for the same space, Europe as a whole seems to manage this very well, they have a good concept of what "the commons" are.
While the US,Australia have a good understanding of what expansion into VACANT land is and have only just come to realise that they have run out of vacant land.


the spoiler you gave increases the complexity of the problem, its actually lack of title that prevents obtaining mortgages ...for small business ...children's education etc. in the poor parts of Cairo it takes money and15-20 years establish freehold title even after 4-5 generations of living their ... in the west house owner ship is high, its often a working families only form of wealth/personal savings. In England there are many examples of actively transferring ownership of Govt. public housing to the tenants

like i say its complex in Cairo, RIO, South Africa ,India , its actually lack of private ownership that's unjust as well as the property owners /govt./ regulations unjust recognition of the problem

I have been actively involved in this area for 25 years... social justice and particularly housing co-ops and have yet to be be totally convinced one way or the other


@ AYN RAND
just on your last point, that's an American solution, AND Aussie... Europe really has a blend of both your alternatives, its not perfect but they still haven't stopped looking for the solution either

 

[Orange Seeds]

People don't own land now. When you have to pay property taxes to the government, you are just renting the property from the government. It is the same as renting an apartment. If you don't pay your rent (or property tax) you are evicted. Your property can also be taken away from you if the government thinks there is a better use for it.

What I would like to see is the abolition of all property taxes.

Not true at all. When you own land currently, you are in control over its use, liability and saleability. Property taxes exist to support programs that are necessary for protecting your property, and also collective programs that increase the value of your property via positive externality. Propetry taxes remove the freerider problem.

Because private property is unjust. It caters to those with the most advantages in life and leaves so many living in conditions like these:

Spoiler :

Why should we tolerate this kind of injustice?

People who are better able to make use of their land, due to their advantages, should be given easier access to it. The welfare of society is dependent on this: If person x can make 10 loafs with parcel A, and person y can make 15 then parcel A should go to the latter. People who are less productive may have an overabundance of property in some original position, but it dwindles so long as society remains competitive. We have a criminal court system to fight unfair acquisitions. It is entirely just to acquire property by one's own effort, even if it excludes someone else from access insofar as scarcity is not a significant issue.

The issues you see in India have little to do with private property, but rather the remnants of a class system, colonial system and mismanagement. If you want a case study in the necessity of private holdings to foster economic growth in modernity look no further than Chinese land collectivization in the 50s and compare it to the SEZs of Xiaoping.

Yes, it is clearly a progression as human beings. 'Free market' sounds good and all, but just like people can't own other people, they cannot have a sovereign right to land.

The reason it is ethically repugnant to own people is because they are moral agents capable of decision making, thus robbing them of that critical element in their humanity is incompatible with any decision based ethical theory. Land has no such attribute, and I question why one would treat real property any differently from any other sort of property; there are only symbolic differences.

 

[Orange Seeds]

Overpopulation is a problem, but I fail to see how the free market makes it better. What checks does the free market provide to make sure land is fully allocated to everyone who needs it?

You're right, it's a necessity, which is why it's imperative that everyone has access to it and not just the people with the most capital.

Governments with taxation schemes are perfectly capable of allocating what people need, and allowing all citizens access to those needs. Food banks, social housing, welfare checks, free education all exist to enforce this. Such governments are entirely compatible with private ownership of real property. And they make your radical solution redundant.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Overpopulation is a problem, but I fail to see how the free market makes it better. What checks does the free market provide to make sure land is fully allocated to everyone who needs it?

It doesn't allocate land to everyone who needs it, which is the distinction between the method you advocate and the free-market method. The free-market creates a competitive environment in which land is constantly traded and developed to maximise profitable use. This is a different kind of solution to the problem, and it helps to produce extra food, higher apartment blocks and more efficient productivity that produce the goods and develop the economy that the population will depend on.

I'm sure homeless and impoverished citizens of urban areas would love the idea of a free house in more scarcely populated areas.

Nothing is free because someone else would have to build the house. If you give them land, then there is a cost because the land is not being used by someone else, or for some other purpose. Finding "free" solutions appears charitable but does not represent optimal economic outcomes. It would be better to give these people a job, or improving pay, or access to better providers across multiple markets of different values.

You're right, it's a necessity, which is why it's imperative that everyone has access to it and not just the people with the most capital.

It is not necessary for everyone to have access to land in order to benefit from it. I don't own land in Africa but I drink coffee and eat chocolate. I also live in an apartment building and don't need to own the land. I can access the land through the markets, and consume the values that the land offers - it is these values, not the land itself, that is the real economic goal and benefit.

That's not my point. People live there because they can't afford to live anywhere else.

That is the immediate and shallow reason - but why can't they afford it? Is it because the economy does not pay them well, or because the country has debts from war - I'm sure you can imagine all sorts of reasons and see that it is not private property that causes poverty. A socialist country with corruption, war, overpopulation, mismanagement etc would still suffer the same.

Elaborate.

On another post I will or this post will be too long.

I don't see how because property is necessary it follows that it has to be dealt out through "free market" methods.

It doesn't follow automatically - I just wanted to point out that both collective and private property systems have the same necessity and limit which must be taken into account when analysing them.

If land is owned by the collective human race(in which case it isn't really owned at all) then no one is being left out. Overpopulation is not that big of a problem yet and if it were the free market is certainly incapable of dealing with it. More urban centers would just have to be created.

I could argue that everyone is being left out, as there is no way for very efficient individuals to purchase more land and develop it. And if they can't do that, then everybody else loses the extra production and skill that these talented individuals represent. The overall level of service might therefore be lower and this could cripple progress.

The free market did deal with overpopulation in the nineteenth century in Europe. Capitalism also created many urban centres. What will your system do that is not currently being achieved? How do you know that your system will lead to improvements rather than setbacks?

 

[kosiosko 1]

How anyone can say the capitalist free market system of speculation is just perfect must have been asleep the last two years --- it does not make the best use of a countries resources ,land here, but makes the most short term profit from them. Society really needs a mix of ideologies to land control