Currently in the United States, although we praise private ownership of the land as the bulwark of our system of land ownership, the taxes levied actually perpetuate a kind of collectivity in ownership. FULL ARTICLE by Robert LeFevre
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/12213/ownership-of-land/
Ownership of Land
Previous post: Blanchard Pushes for More Inflation
Next post: Remember the Father of the Constitution
{ 43 comments }
Lefevre seems to excuse takings, when he says this: “If a free market is assumed, even though property in land remained in the ownership of a particular family line, no real problem could or would arise. If the property were utilized to its highest advantage, the entire economy would benefit irrespective of the name of the owner. If the property were not utilized according to its highest utility, market factors would arise in time, which would make it advantageous to alter utilization or to transfer ownership.”
In just such a spirit our Supreme Court has recently established the precedent that the government can take one’s property in order to transfer ownership to another private party. The reason being offered as sufficient is that this taking is justified because it’s to promote a higher usage. That is, if you have operated a family business in a coveted location for many years, or even several generations, it is deemed “higher” to seize it and give it to the developer of a shopping center or an industrial park.
To me this is inadequate. One man’s “higher use” is another’s illegitimate seizure. I’m sure the native tribes of Massachusetts saw in the takings committed by the Massachusetts Bay Colony no higher usage– even though the land was transformed from dispersed farming and hunting settlements to more compact ones.
I think they’d also have obected to the notion that “the entire economy would benefit irrespective of the name of the owner.” I think it matters quite a bit whether the land I’ve been living on belongs to me or whether title is to transfer involuntarily to you.
Some nice thoughts. But overall, this essay needs work.
I think you misinterpret what Robert is writing. He is merely pointing out that natural market forces would tend to move ownership into the direction of maximum utilization. As a property becomes more “coveted” its value will go up and current owners will be more likely to either sell or utilize their property in a more productive way.
Thanks for the comment. I think natural forces would tend to make a person owning a patch of land want to keep that land. And to resist anyone wanting to either buy it from him (up to a certain price) or force him to change his ways. Like maybe changing the zoning so he couldn’t farm it any more.
Most people (not everyone) have their price. But more commonly, land use is altered by the simple means of the property tax. Greater Monterey, CA used to be the home of the artichoke growing industry. That is, until they decided they would rather see the land put up in row upon row of town houses. So the politicians raised the tax rate to that of quarter or eighth-acre lots. No artichoke grower, using hundreds of acres of farmland, can afford that and stay in business. So those lands are now urban. And we see fewer artichokes in the stores.
Absent such uses of force, a majority of farms stay farms for generations, until economic conditions of one sort or another bring them to disaster. Once the owners are ejected, I think it is scant satisfaction to them that their former lands have been converted to a Higher Usage.
Everyone has their price Michael. Even so, if the landowner stubbornly holds their land and continues to use it in a way that results in far less prosperity for himself/herself, then that is their natural right. Nobody has the right to force them out in the name of “progress”. On the flip side, if they mismanage their land poorly enough to the point of selling it off, they have no right to be “satisfied” with how its new owners choose to exploit that land.
Everyone does not have their price. Any time you sell a property you have to buy another one. And if you’re already happy where you are, no amount of money will make you sell. That is, unless you are the kind of person for whom money matters above all.
What is it that makes maximizing prosperity such an overriding goal in life? Shouldn’t one just work toward becoming happy and fulfilled, and once having attained that, working toward maintaining that fortunate state? Do we really need to also have enough money to buy more consumer crap than we want, need or have room to store?
Usually the pursuit of such inordinate sums of money lead one to compromise one’s original goals, working seventy and eighty hour weeks in order to… do what?
Michael,
LeFevre did not mean the seizure of lands under the pretext of a “higher usage” is justified, but that the fears espoused by anti-property ideologues are unjustified, precisely because market forces and profitability preclude the surgence or resurgence of an aristocratic class.
Who are these anti-property ideologues? 19th century anarchists? I don’t follow you.
I think he meant anti-private-property ideologues — like socialists.
You must be using some new definition. Under the old definition, socialists were just people who worked toward building a world where poor working class folk could own some property too.
The only people who were against private property itself were Bolsheviks and a few of the more extreme anarchists. And such people are not to be found on the contemporary scene. So if there are any currently active anti-property ideologues I would like to know who, and where, they are.
Property Taxes Violate Human Rights.
Property tax is proof that property rights are violated and the classical liberalism ideal is far from realized. Once we recognize that property rights are human rights we will stop tolerating property taxes.
I’m grateful for reading this passage because it heightens my awareness of the importance of learning libertarian philosophy. Ownership, to a certain extent, is not an easy concept to understand when the idea is thought in temporal and spatial domains. However, the article proves the libertarian case of private ownership. Overall Mr. Roberts’s elegantly written article solidifies my passion for libertarianism. Thank you Mr. Roberts, and thank you Mises Institute.
When looking at the value of property, school districts do matter. I live on a lake where one side has lower property taxes and low quality schools. The other side of the lake pays about $600 a year more on public education and has a more desired school district. The bottom line is the properties on the higher taxed area sell for $200,000 more.
If you bought property in an area that had zero property taxes and no schools, fire, police or other public services, that property would be worth very little. And if you built a house on that property, you would loose most of the cost of construction.
On the other hand, high property taxes will hurt your property value. This happens in areas that spend beyond the basic education, fire, police and roads. For example, in NY, most property owners pay 4 times more in property taxes than we do in North Carolina. The result is a migration of people retiring to the South as they find they can live in a bigger house and the amount they save on taxes makes their house payments.
If you are investing or advising people in real estate, you must understand what gives property value.
An argument that left-anarchists (i.e. mutualists) have made and the Right has never seemed to answer is: how does one establish Lockean property rights in land? What constitutes mixing one’s labor with the land? When does a property become abandonded?
For most of modern history, these answers have been provided by the state. The state determines how much labor you need to put into land in order to occupy it, the state determines what constitutes abandonment, and so forth. It is only when a homesteader takes up unowned farmland and farms it for a considerable period of time is the answer certain outside of the state.
Methinks you should give DTGTF a read and find an answer.
I’ve read Hoppe’s book, multiple times actually, and referred it to friends. But he never discusses ‘how’.
“The state determines how much labor you need to put into land in order to occupy it, the state determines what constitutes abandonment, and so forth. It is only when a homesteader takes up unowned farmland and farms it for a considerable period of time is the answer certain outside of the state.”
Nick– This may have been the way it was done back in the homesteading era. But wasn’t that 200 years ago? Nowadays one establishes ownership of the land by purchase from its current owner. And by subsequent payment of his or her property taxes. As long as one does that, he owns the land. He does have certain other, minor duties. In the city, to keep the weeds down, or keep it clean of trash, for instance.
That is, unless the locality wants to seize it through eminent domain. Then he’s screwed.
BTW, where today can we find “unowned farmland” available for homesteading?
Nick– This may have been the way it was done back in the homesteading era. But wasn’t that 200 years ago? Nowadays one establishes ownership of the land by purchase from its current owner. And by subsequent payment of his or her property taxes. As long as one does that, he owns the land. He does have certain other, minor duties. In the city, to keep the weeds down, or keep it clean of trash, for instance.
I suggest reading “Man, Economy and State”. Ownership is demonstrated by control. Since the person you’re calling an “owner” does not really have ultimate control over said property, he/she is not truly an owner. I just bought a house last month but I’m fully aware of who really owns that property.
I own my home free and clear. So I guess I control it. All I have to do is keep my taxes paid and it will continue to be mine. Are you saying there are additional steps I must take?
The state I live in has no other standards for ownership. I own the place even if I let the weeds grow up and gutters fall down. There are no Lockean requirements of which I am aware.
- How about in the 30% of US land owned by the federal government. The US government doesn’t own it by any Lockean principle, so it is not really owned.
Re: Nick,
By fencing it, e.g. through actual fences or walls, or by having neighbors that are as committed to holding their land as you are.
ANY action designed to obtain a future reward, be it the toiling of the land to plant crops, or be it holding it as a natural reserve to enjoy the little animals in it – any future reward. This is why hunter-gatherers did not value the land the same way as sedentarian people, since the hunter-gatherers act for an immediate, not a future, benefit.
When the owner dies without a will nor kin. If the land had no owner, then it was NOT property, or was it?
Do we really need a state — a group of politicians — to work these out for us? Are they more qualified? Do they even have the right? Given the history of Merchant Law, I’d say no.
I don’t think that we need a state to sort these things out, but if the Rothbardian argument for property rights in land is the ability to forcibly exclude others from using it (control), that’s pretty weak.
There is always room for aggression – protecting one’s self, family, property from aggression by others. If someone trespasses on my property, that’s aggression, and requires some type of a response.
So if I torch a few thousand acres of forest (slash and burn), do I own it?
No need to torch them, just punch them. The application of labour. Job done! Twas hard work though, my hands need a rest…
So, the government owns the land. This is necessarily true due to the state securing and defending the land in the first place. I don’t see how property taxes conflict with reality. If you don’t want property taxes you can build your own army and secure your own land. It’s cheaper and easier to just pay the property taxes though.
Re: Nelson,
I also pay personal taxes (income, consumption, profits) – does the government own me?
They conflict with property rights, not with reality. You’re obfuscating.
Considering that the government is the greatest threat to property rights, the idea that by paying taxes to the same government that can kill you or leave you without property, my property will be “protected”, sounds like a bad joke, or a good example of faulty (i.e. unintelligent) thinking.
Only force can secure ownership of property. Everything else is a temporary illusion. The government does “own” you in the sense that if you don’t pay your taxes, they put you in jail or worse… and take the taxes anyway. Btw, I’m not disagreeing that government is a threat to freedom, I’m just saying they own the land. We rent it through taxes. If you want to see how much land you really own, just stop paying taxes on it. The government will make it clear who is in charge.
OK, where did they homestead it? And please don’t say people ‘agreed’ to bequeath it the land when the vast territories of the US themselves were never homesteaded. Not everyone ‘agreed’ anymore than they ‘agreed’ to have the mob force them to pay protection money. The government will make it clear how much of a thief it is… doesn’t mean it owns the land legitimately…
What “legitimate” means can be debated upon by philosophers who don’t own land. Meanwhile Americans can thank our armies for taking possession of our real estate from natives and defending it against counter attacks. I’m not complaining. I just realize that if the natives had better stronger armies (and better immune systems), they’d still “own” the land. To pretend we’re the legitimate owners through virtue or luck rather than force is false foundation on which to build a theory of ownership. The foundation is and always will be force. Everything “legitimate” is built upon that illegitimate foundation.
OK, now prove why legitimate = force. Get to it. I await.
There is no need to debate legitimacy or morality of force. It simply exists. Theories that ignore the truth of force can not be taken seriously if they claim any relationship to our own world. If those theories are about an imaginary ideal world the author should state “These theories are about an imaginary ideal world, not our own.”
There is no need to debate legitimacy or morality of force. It simply exists. Theories that ignore the truth of force can not be taken seriously if they claim any relationship to our own world. If those theories are about an imaginary ideal world the author should state “These theories are about an imaginary ideal world, not our own.”
You’re falling into the trap of relativism. How about I just kill you for your house? After all, my use of force “simply exists” and whether it’s legitimate or not is irrelevant. The truth is morality really does matter to you (unless you’re a sociopath) because it is ingrained in all human nature, but you’re copping out and playing the role of the eternal skeptic. Man up and take a stand. If you truly feel the U.S. government’s slaughter of American Indians for their land is morally justified, then say why — not simply “just because”.
One more thing: Since the force we’re talking about was initiated by thinking, feeling human beings whose behavior is affected by their sense of morality, then the morality behind said force definitely needs to be called into question. The all-powerful, untouchable force you bow to does not “simply exist”. It came into existence through the subjective motives of human beings.
Like Mashuri said… force is imposed by acting, thinking, feeling beings who can and do justify… so again, wherein is the US’s territorial claim over its vast territories rooted?
It’s cheaper and easier to just pay the property taxes though
Why do you come to that conclusion? Since a government takes its wealth by force and is not subject to the discipline of the free market, they are anything but the “cheaper” option. I won’t even get into the subjective value that is lost due to government’s violation of one’s rights.
I’m not willing to start a revolution over property taxes. Are you?
Not yet…….
Balancing Human Rights And Property Taxes.
When property rights are seen as a human right the whole idea of the taxation of property changes. What is tolerable? What is ethical? What is just? (with regards human rights)
The idea of restricting human rights by the means of taxation is unpalatable to most. If nothing else this economic identity (property rights are human rights and human rights are property rights) will redefine what is considered moderate. Liberty does have limits, as implied in property rights and human rights, and what society defines and redefines as moderate will be a reflection of those limits.
Taxation (and specifically property taxes) is a direct attack. It only exists to sustain the State. In a classical liberalism society there will not be a coercive State and so what does exist will be supported voluntarily. It may have some degree of an agreed upon ‘tax on human rights’ but as such it will be carefully watched and guarded – against excesses.
“Btw, I’m not disagreeing that government is a threat to freedom, I’m just saying they own the land. We rent it through taxes…”
or do we own the land and they manage it via taxes??
A moot point.. and an excellent one!
I was once in the Soviet Union, before it fell, and was riding through a pleasant suburban neighborhood of Tallinn one afternoon. So I mentioned to the bus driver how nice it was.
“Oh” he replied, “It might look okay. But we don’t own it. Here we can’t own the land so we have to take out a 99 year lease, and then build our house on it. The system you have in the US is much better.”
So I told him “We really have the same system as yours, we just use different words. You enter into a land lease and pay rent, where we say we own the land and pay property taxes. Either way, if you fall behind or if they want the land for some other use, you’re out.”
“American Indians, at the time the first Europeans came to the Western Hemisphere, in the main practiced collective ownership of the land. The tribe claimed the territory. White men, seeking to make treaties with the Indians, purchased such territories from the Indians without completely conveying the meaning of their purchase to the aboriginals”
LeFevre skipped over the part where the white people violate all the treaties and commit genocide every time we wanted more Indian land.
Will human beings ever stop fighting and arguing about land? I doubt it.
Comments on this entry are closed.