4 ms·

> Private property in land is pretty much the definition of a government-created privilege Though I welcome citations to prove the matter one way or the other,

> Private property in land is pretty much the definition of a government-created privilege Though I welcome citations to prove the matter one way or the other, I suspect that the 18th-century Lockean concept of natural rights which informed the founders of the USA, saw ownership of private property as a right and not a government-created privilege. That is, if one claimed land on what was seen as terra nullius, or if a person’s family had owned the lank back to time immemorial, then the land was rightfully theirs regardless of government recognition or not. State recognition in the form of deeds would only have represented something useful for dispute resolution, and did not imply that the state was granting any rights.

zozbot234 7y ago
Locke specifically cautioned that ownership in land could only be justified so long as there was "enough, and as good, left in common for others". Clearly, this is no longer the case today; indeed, the monetary value of that monopoly right precisely shows the extent to which the use of land has become scarce.
- yters 7y ago
  An artificial scarcity created by the fact the government controls most of the land... We should be demanding the government cede control of the land, instead of pleading for the government to give us a smidgen of what it does not rightfully possess!
  - charlesu 7y ago
    And private investors wouldn't immediately buy up as much land as possible as they did with single family homes during the housing crisis? Everyone needs a place to live and land is a finite resource. Plus, foreign investors love to use real estate to park money. Government doesn't seem to be the problem here. People will pay what they have to to avoid being homeless. At the same time, developers will build what's most profitable: luxury housing. The market won't fix the problem, so we the people, by way of government, should.
    - yters 7y ago
      Well, don't let foreign investors buy up all our land. Government should cede control of the land, and let its citizens stake out plots.
      - learc83 7y ago
        And then we've just kicked the can down to the road a generation or so. Whatever problems you think more privately owned land will solve today, will just be waiting for us tomorrow.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      None of what you've described is a problem absent government micromanagement of what can and can't be done on said land (strict zoning, examples include SV). The government has stepped in in many markets and halted that "race to the bottom" that everyone seems to hate and $500/mo 2br apartments vanish with it.
      - charlesu 7y ago
        Can you point to a developed country where the government doesn't micromanage land and housing is affordable and plentiful as a result? I can't think of any modern or historical examples. How does less zoning lead to affordable housing? What's the mechanism?
        yters 7y ago
        I guess most non developed countries? People just walk into the wilderness and plop down a free (money wise, not labor wise) house.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        Japan? [0] Most construction is by-right, and housing is some of the cheapest in a developed nation. There are zones, but only 12 nationwide, and each only specifies a maximum use - this means if a location is zoned for industrial or dense commercial, you can still build apartments there. (Generally. It's not quite that simple, but still fits on a single poster [1] - you can't build stores, restaurants or schools in industrial for example) 0: https://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html https://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.htm... 1: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sV5ETXDs_8M/Ux-axBTuF2I/AAAAAAAAAsE/E6gs6uJr_8M/s1600/ZonageInclusifJ.JPG https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sV5ETXDs_8M/Ux-axBTuF2I/AAAAAAAAA...
ptah 7y ago
the state still has to protect it. without a state someone else could violently take the land away with impunity
- zozbot234 7y ago
  That's why these rights should be leased over time. The rent from these leases can then pay for national defense, a courts system (formal rights to real-estate are quite important if you want people to physically invest in it) and many other things. If you just give them away, you're left with no money to pay for these things.
socialdemocrat 7y ago
That is a highly artificial concept that only applies to the US given that there was vast amounts of land and relatively few people. But even in the US the assumption was highly flawed as it basically ignored the existence of native people. Their land was just to be taken by violence. Hence without government created privilege all your are left with is a dog-eat dog world where the strongest through violence will take land for himself. European settlers would respect each others claim of land mostly, but it basically meant it was in principle no different from an invading force stealing land. Native Americans of course did not own land in the Lockean way. They held the land in common. The natural arrangement was in many ways closer to a communist/socialist ideal.

zozbot234 7y ago

Locke specifically cautioned that ownership in land could only be justified so long as there was "enough, and as good, left in common for others". Clearly, this is no longer the case today; indeed, the monetary value of that monopoly right precisely shows the extent to which the use of land has become scarce.

yters 7y ago
An artificial scarcity created by the fact the government controls most of the land... We should be demanding the government cede control of the land, instead of pleading for the government to give us a smidgen of what it does not rightfully possess!
- charlesu 7y ago
  And private investors wouldn't immediately buy up as much land as possible as they did with single family homes during the housing crisis? Everyone needs a place to live and land is a finite resource. Plus, foreign investors love to use real estate to park money. Government doesn't seem to be the problem here. People will pay what they have to to avoid being homeless. At the same time, developers will build what's most profitable: luxury housing. The market won't fix the problem, so we the people, by way of government, should.
  - yters 7y ago
    Well, don't let foreign investors buy up all our land. Government should cede control of the land, and let its citizens stake out plots.
    - learc83 7y ago
      And then we've just kicked the can down to the road a generation or so. Whatever problems you think more privately owned land will solve today, will just be waiting for us tomorrow.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    None of what you've described is a problem absent government micromanagement of what can and can't be done on said land (strict zoning, examples include SV). The government has stepped in in many markets and halted that "race to the bottom" that everyone seems to hate and $500/mo 2br apartments vanish with it.
    - charlesu 7y ago
      Can you point to a developed country where the government doesn't micromanage land and housing is affordable and plentiful as a result? I can't think of any modern or historical examples. How does less zoning lead to affordable housing? What's the mechanism?
      - yters 7y ago
        I guess most non developed countries? People just walk into the wilderness and plop down a free (money wise, not labor wise) house.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        Japan? [0] Most construction is by-right, and housing is some of the cheapest in a developed nation. There are zones, but only 12 nationwide, and each only specifies a maximum use - this means if a location is zoned for industrial or dense commercial, you can still build apartments there. (Generally. It's not quite that simple, but still fits on a single poster [1] - you can't build stores, restaurants or schools in industrial for example) 0: https://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html https://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.htm... 1: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sV5ETXDs_8M/Ux-axBTuF2I/AAAAAAAAAsE/E6gs6uJr_8M/s1600/ZonageInclusifJ.JPG https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sV5ETXDs_8M/Ux-axBTuF2I/AAAAAAAAA...

ptah 7y ago

the state still has to protect it. without a state someone else could violently take the land away with impunity

zozbot234 7y ago
That's why these rights should be leased over time. The rent from these leases can then pay for national defense, a courts system (formal rights to real-estate are quite important if you want people to physically invest in it) and many other things. If you just give them away, you're left with no money to pay for these things.

socialdemocrat 7y ago

That is a highly artificial concept that only applies to the US given that there was vast amounts of land and relatively few people. But even in the US the assumption was highly flawed as it basically ignored the existence of native people. Their land was just to be taken by violence. Hence without government created privilege all your are left with is a dog-eat dog world where the strongest through violence will take land for himself. European settlers would respect each others claim of land mostly, but it basically meant it was in principle no different from an invading force stealing land. Native Americans of course did not own land in the Lockean way. They held the land in common. The natural arrangement was in many ways closer to a communist/socialist ideal.