|
|
||
To Alter Or To AbolishChapter 31Land Title DistributionWritten by Darrell Anderson. I never said the land was mine to do with as I choose. The one who has a right to dispose of it is the one who has created it. I claim a right to live on my land and accord you the privilege to return to yours. Chief Joseph, Nez Perce Another method humans use to create virtual perpetual motion that captures the labor of other people is by controlling land title distribution. The roots of human land ownership as a social custom are unknown although the concept of territoriality is common among many animal species.[1] In early human history, land titles were a function of the family, clan, or tribe. For much of that history, land titles were inalienable — not transferable. By custom and upon death of the titleholder, title automatically passed to the immediate family members.[2] The concept of “unlimited” title or private property in land was almost unknown in ancient societies; that concept of property applied only to movable objects.[3] As individuality began to provide more meaning within social and legal systems, transfer of land titles became more complex. One of the primary Marxist complaints is that capitalism is a system of exploitation. Marxists claim that capitalists own or control the means of production and therefore general laborers have no choice but to starve, steal, or submit to the demands of the exploiters. Capitalists respond by declaring that every human is free to choose and possesses the right to contract. In other words, there is no exploitation because laborers always can vote with their feet. Who is correct? Humans are free to choose a societal system of “might makes right,” and in such a system the concepts of ownership and titles become meaningless. Instead, humans choose to encourage social systems that better promote mutual survival. Therefore, to one degree or another, most humans readily embrace the idea that every human possesses title in his or her individual body. That property title is the most fundamental title of all. From that concept is derived the idea that all humans are created equal and possess an equal right to survive. From that premise springs the idea that to support individual life humans also must possess a right to possess and control resources. Through the concept of property, rights, contract, and consent people then can exchange those resources with one another to better satisfy their own pursuit of happiness. Weaving throughout this entire concept of ownership and exchange is the concept of trespass. That is, transfer of property titles without explicit consent is trespass. All of these ideas encourage mutual survival. Such a social system necessarily embraces the idea of controlling parcels of land. All natural resources are derived from land, therefore some form of recognition is necessary to control the primary resource of land. Humans cannot produce or survive without access to land. The concept of property titles in land probably is rooted in the beginning of the agrarian era. Hunter-gatherers had no need for the concept of property titles in land. What few resources or tools a clan, tribe, or family of hunter-gatherers possessed were “owned” collectively and communally. Ownership in land was meaningless because hunter-gatherers migrated and roamed, never remaining long or fixed in one location. As humans devoted more time to raising crops rather than foraging and hunting, the principle of scarcity became more prevalent as other humans attempted to raid those crops for survival. Those principles of time and labor investments gave rise to the concept of property in land.[4] The concept of property in land is a result of fixed communities of people, not mobile individuals. By definition, the concept of property necessarily includes standing to exclude others. If all land is titled, and if all available land is titled, then this power to exclude creates an obvious tension with the common social right to survive because not all people will be titleholders. In other words, if every human is assumed to possess title in his or her individual body and the associated resources to support that life, then every human possesses an equal right to pursue happiness and to sustain that life. Because possession of resources is dependent upon land, one could argue that every human therefore possesses a right of equal access to land. However, regardless of the form or nature of the social community humans choose, titles to parcels of land always will be a social privilege, not a natural right. The right to survive and sustain life can be considered a natural right, and that right includes access to land and resources, but the idea of excluding others from that access necessarily must always be a privilege. There always then will be potential for conflict and violence. During the 19th century, several social reformers and philosophers used this line of reasoning as a foundation for their own theories of reform.[5] If people are to embrace these straightforward ideas about ownership, the previous Marxist and capitalist claims take on new light. The traditional elements of production are land, labor, and capital. To control land title distribution is to partially control the means of production. If any human is deprived of the right to equal access to land then that individual has no choice but to choose between starvation, stealing, or submitting to the whims of existing land titleholders. The claim that an individual can vote with his or her feet becomes meaningless unless land is available for homesteading. If there is no available land then the Marxists would seem to have the upper hand in this particular discussion. Marx’s solution was to eliminate capitalism (as he generally defined that term), eliminate the idea of private property, and to transfer to laborers (the proletariat) all political avenues of controlling the means of production. To Marxists and socialists in general, the term private property generally refers to land but conceptually refers to titles created by political privilege, not individual possessions obtained through free association and voluntary exchange. Marx correctly observed the problems and issues around him, but unfortunately derived incorrect conclusions and solutions from those observations. The 19th century reformers Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Herbert Spencer, and Henry George similarly recognized a land distribution dilemma and concluded that the problem was a land shortage — derived originally from a political policy of land tenure and privilege. Proudhon supported the concept of private property in land, but opposed titles to land obtained through political privilege. Spencer and George proposed a solution of a ground-rent tax to discourage large holdings of land. The tax is essentially a site rental fee based upon subjective market rental value. Spencer later rescinded his proposal on the ground-rent tax as impractical because he believed such a rent would have to be enforced and collected through the national political system — where all British land titles ultimately were derived. Spencer argued the rents should be forwarded to the political national treasury, more or less promoting political ownership of all land. George argued those rents should remain private, more or less promoting contractual communities. All of these men were correct to conclude there is a land title distribution problem, but failed to define their terms or look for deeper root causes. Because all external resources ultimately are derived from land, property titles in land also possess rental value — a license fee. The manner is which those titles are created, distributed, and controlled is easily converted into efforts to create virtual perpetual motion and sustain energy flows. That is, merely by political privilege, that title may provide a means to secure a perpetual income without direct labor and necessarily coerces non-titleholders to pay a rent to use that land. The 19th century reformers recognized this problem and argued that such revenues were received “unearned” because land titles were not obtained through free association and voluntary exchange but political privilege. Whenever all available land is titled, then all people pay rent in some manner or another. Those individuals who obtain titles outright pay the equivalent of future rents through a lump sum purchase price. Those who do not possess title pay periodic rents to the titleholder. Only when all land is not titled can some humans homestead and avoid paying rent in one manner or another. The basis for a ground-rent tax solution is based upon several flawed presumptions. One flaw is a presumption that all land is owned in common by humanity. Spencer and George made the mistake of equating equal access (usufruct) with equal ownership (property title). The concepts are not the same. The former describes a process of usage, the latter complete control, including the right to exclude or waste resources. John Locke also made the same presumption that the world was “given” to humans in common.[6] A Georgist or Geoist[7] ground-rent tax is a proposal to discourage possessing title to large tracts of land and to discourage speculation (the possession of land titles without an alleged corresponding “productive” use of that land). The tax is partially based upon what is sometimes called the Lockean Proviso:[8] It [natural resources] being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others. [Emphasis added.] The Lockean Proviso declares that every human is free to dispense with natural resources as he or she sees fit — until there no longer is any left in common for people to exercise their right to equal access.[9] Geoists then justify that thereafter a social system principle must exist to encourage the right of equal access to land and if people want to nonetheless hold large tracts of land and exclude others from exercising the right of equal access that titleholders should pay the rest of “society” for that privilege of holding title to large tracts of land. The thinking is that non-titleholders should be compensated for being denied their natural right of equal access. The idea assumes all land is originally owned in common, therefore all titleholders must pay a fee to “society” for that use. By definition, title in a parcel of land means that other people can be excluded from using that parcel, and the titleholder can charge a rental fee for others to use that land. One challenge to the concept of common ownership should be recognized from the discussions of property, rights, and consent. Within those boundaries and definitions, property cannot be transferred without explicit consent of the titleholder. With the concept of ownership in common, all title transfers in land and resource acquisitions thereof always would need the consent of every human. Harvesting an acorn would require the consent of every living individual.[10] Another challenge is that such an assumption negates the concept of first possession and subsequent title chains, and instead creates title by succession and decree. Title by succession and fiat decree was an inherent problem with feudalistic communities, as well as many monarchies and dictatorships. Under any such political privilege system, if title to one acre is justified then so is title to one million acres — the concept of scarcity no longer plays a role.[11] Conversely, if there was the reality that no more land existed for any human, then title to one acre is no longer justified. “Society” does not exist as an entity, but is only a descriptive label of certain individuals. Thus, ownership can be defined only in terms of the individual members of that group.[12] Although a noble effort, the idea of ownership in common of all land is logistically impossible to sustain. The concept of common ownership creates a coercive social system. Pure socialism embraces voluntary communal ownership of land. Many North American Indian tribes practiced such a communal ownership of land title.[13] However, a system of title by succession and decree is involuntary in nature. Additionally, if a ground-rent tax is due simply by exercising a right of equal access to land — which necessarily is derived from the concept of self and the right to survive — then every human is involuntarily coerced into a situation of never-ending coerced production to pay that rent. To declare that all land is “owned in common” does not necessarily mean all land is or must be titled, or that the idea is meaningless. That expression often is intended to mean that no one individual possesses standing to exclude others. If one individual harvests an apple from any land “owned” in common, then that individual cannot deny any others from doing likewise. However, once title to a parcel of land is recognized by many people, then that titleholder possesses standing to exclude. Thus, to be “owned” in common is only another way of declaring owned by nobody. To avoid conflict and violence, the concept of “owned in common” must be limited to land in its natural condition and not to cultivated or developed land. A coercive ground-rent tax is not the solution to provide better access to land. Such a tax is merely an extension of the political system violating the concepts of free association, voluntary exchange, and explicit consent, and is no different in application from the current coerced property tax system. Such a land tax is still a tax, which politicians will collect by whatever means available, including violence. The Geoist land tax introduces a difficult question to answer. If the tax is only on the land, then what happens to the buildings and dwellings and other property on the land when a recognized titleholder fails to pay that coercive ground-rent tax? Geoist theory admits that the titleholder possesses full and clear title to everything but the land. How would a titleholder be compensated when evicted from that land for failing to pay the ground-rent tax? History reveals that rarely are evicted titleholders compensated full value. Additionally, where does the evicted titleholder go after eviction? That individual is coerced into paying rent to other titleholders in order to obtain access to land. Thus, one way or another every human is enslaved into paying rent for land. The Geoist solution is delivered with another flaw. No human can survive without ties to the land. Thus, any coerced tax system on land is a system of slavery. The issue becomes circular. Every human possesses a right of equal access to land, but then every human is going to be coercively taxed to exercise that right. Any tax necessarily requires coerced labor and production in order to pay that tax. Thus, to exercise that right every human must be enslaved, but enslavement is contrary to the very idea of self, rights, and equal access. Additionally, there is a challenging question: What happens to the individual who merely exercises the right of equal access and refuses to pay the ground-rent tax? If the individual is deprived of title for refusing to pay the tax, then the individual has been deprived of equal access. The concept of explicit consent becomes meaningless. The Geoist ground-rent tax solution encompasses another flaw discussed herein elsewhere — that simply “being in the neighborhood” provides implied consent to participate in a political society or specific social system. Everybody has the right of equal access to land, and everybody physically has to live somewhere, but fiat declarations of a political society do not necessarily create implied consent. Humans are primarily concerned with individual survival and happiness, and support mutual survival and happiness only as a matter of reasoning, practical necessity, efficiency, and reciprocity. Whenever forced to choose one or the other many people will opt for individual survival. The observation that legal systems exist is evidence of this potential for anti-social behavior. Thus, many social reformers often fall to the same incorrect presumption: that everybody will voluntarily participate in the solutions they propose. More importantly, many reformers fail to address the true root cause for the economic imbalances they witness. Many social reformers are correct in recognizing a problem with land title distribution. Marx wanted to eliminate the concept of titles in land — to create communal ownership. Proudhon wanted to eliminate those titles obtained through political privilege. Spencer and George were willing to continue the process of individual titles but with regulation based upon a concept that all land was “owned in common.” Only Proudhon was close to recognizing the root problem for the land shortage. The root cause of the land shortage problem is that land title distribution is controlled by the people operating the statist political system. Their claims to manage and own parcels of land is an illusion. This illusion was challenged at least as far back as the early 19th century.[14] The problem is not a true physical shortage of land, but a shortage of access to land created by the forced interference of people using the political system to create an artificial scarcity in land titles. All scarce resources possess a leasing value and land is no different. When scarcity is artificially created, then numerous problems enter human social systems. An access problem arises when individuals within political societies by mere fiat declare and claim title to all lands. Such claims to title are illegitimate. Understanding how this problem occurred requires examining history. The problem has existed for centuries, but within western civilization, the problem became particularly noticeable when William of Normandy invaded Britain in the year 1066 and through conquest pompously claimed title to all lands. In the western world, from that period to the present lands have been seen as being owned by the “sovereign” king and title to land in the king’s name was allodial in nature. Allodial means beholden to no one. The concept of allodial title was unknown to ancient hunter-gatherers, herders, and agrarian societies where people lived at subsistence levels. Only in societies where surpluses were created and traded and where markets of exchange existed did the concept arise.[15] Under such a social system, the only possible allodial titles were those allegedly possessed by the king or ruling priests. All subsequent land titles were only in fee simple — socage. That is, a political privilege and not a right. Titles in fee simple still acknowledged the “sovereign” as the ultimate titleholder.[16] Fee simple is remembered in concept by remembering that the word fee originally was a contraction from the words feud or fief.[17] Fief (or fiefdom) is another word for estate or tenure, and a privileged titleholder in that system was called the tenant in chief.[18] Understanding this origin shows the relationship to the “sovereign.” The modern use of the word fee is derived from the same etymology.[19] A more light-hearted twist on words to remember the nature of fee simple is an individual pays a fee to receive a simple title, not allodial. Inherent in the idea of fee simple is the land is not truly owned by the privileged titleholder, but is ultimately owned by the issuer of the title — the “sovereign.” In other words, the concept of fee simple implies only the highest private title with respect to everybody except the “sovereign,” but the land is still beholden to the “sovereign.” All fee simple titles are only for usage and occupancy. Thus, from the “sovereign’s” perspective, fee simple titles represented boundaries against all “citizens” of the realm, but not against the “sovereign.” Such titles conveyed no rights of sovereignty. Land titles were held only at the “sovereign’s” pleasure and could be seized at any time and for any reason. Under this illusion of “sovereignty,” between the “sovereigns” of different political societies land titles could be obtained only through one of three means:
Within each separate political society individual land titles could be obtained only at the pleasure of the “sovereign.” Through this political process arose the feudal system of land ownership.[20] This type of thinking provided the foundation for the modern property title system. In conjunction with the rise of political power of the Roman Church, through that political system arose the concept of “the right of discovery.” That fiat doctrine declared that all newly discovered lands belonged to the “sovereign” who discovered the land — either directly or through commissioned “servants.” Unless those lands were inhabited previously by believing members of the Roman Church, natives were considered “savages” with no rights of title to land. Thus, despite being occupied by indigenous natives actually using the land, this doctrine created a parallel means of conquest to convey title of lands to the “sovereign.” Indigenous natives and their rights were ignored.[21] This policy or concept continues to this day. In America, the concept that land is ultimately owned by the “sovereign” (“the state”) is witnessed by the fiat constitutional claims of eminent domain.[22] Further evidence is noticed when any titleholder fails to pay a property tax and the title is seized under the color of law. The modern property tax is similar to a quitrent. The practice of collecting quitrents was a legal theory originating in the European feudal era, whereby the tenant who paid such rent was quieted or quit from all other services to the landlord. In colonial America the theory operated poorly. Often the tenant simply did not pay the fee — land was far too abundant (no scarcity) and enforcing the concept was difficult across 3,000 miles of ocean. As the population increased and land titles became scarcer, the quitrent concept was slowly resurrected through the nature of the general property tax — with the “sovereign” being the legal fiction of “the state.” Another clue this policy continues is the boundaries described in a title lie within the declared fiat boundaries of a political society. That is, those boundaries often are meaningless without respect to “the state.” Therefore, because most lands in America can be traced to conquest or the fiat “right of discovery,” the idea that land titles in America are allodial is a fallacy — and always has been. Land title possession today is nothing but a modified feudal system of land tenure. Some people think constitutional declarations can remedy the issue. Yet, notice the Wisconsin Constitution, Article I, Section 14 proclaiming, “All lands within the state are declared to be allodial, and feudal tenures are prohibited.” Take as many guesses as necessary to decide how the Wisconsin Supreme Court judges have decided about the meaning of allodial with respect to political legislation. The Humpty Dumpty game never changes — words mean whatever the “sovereign” declares them to mean. Therefore, the land shortage problem originally surfaced when political societies (people acting under the legal fiction of “sovereignty” and “statism”) proclaimed mere flag-in-the-ground declarations of ownership. Actual usage was irrelevant. For example, through the “right of discovery” Christopher Columbus proclaimed the American continents to be the property of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. Likewise when Americans paid $15 million to buy the Louisiana Territory — from the previous flag-in-the-ground proclamations of France and Spain. Today, by mere decree politicians assume ultimate ownership and jurisdiction to all land within their self-proclaimed fiat boundaries. Likewise, land in Europe became artificially scarce when all land was titled to various nobles and barons. This artificial creation of title gave rise to the theory of “unearned rent,” popularized by David Ricardo and many subsequent thinkers. Ricardo was a British economist who lived in the late 1700s and early 1800s during the beginning of the Industrial Age. Ricardo lived during a period when farming still dominated human existence. He declared that differences in land fertility would produce differences in farm production, and those differences in production would produce differences in the amount of rent the land owner could command. At one end of the spectrum was highly fertile land that produced a more abundant yield of crops, and could command a high rent. At the other end was land so infertile that the land might not produce anything, and could command no rent at all. However, this theory holds true only within the narrow presumption that all land is titled. Yet, examining how titles during this era were derived reveals that the true problem is not “unearned rent” but the politicization of land title distribution. Through this politicization process, thousands and thousands of acres of land were inaccessible without a usage fee. The modern land shortage problem arises because of the illusion of how the chain of title was originally created. All modern land titles are traceable to conquest (and subsequently by cession or treaty), not true homesteading and usage. That philosophy exists today. Because of this political doctrine, land is not settled by homesteading and usage but by title transfers through the “sovereign” or “the state.” That process also gives rise to speculation. Speculation arises naturally from the economic attribute of scarcity and the uncertainty and fear about the future. Like any asset that can be used to create wealth, land possesses potential rental value. Although economic rent is a natural byproduct of life and the right to use property, exploiting economic rent of land is difficult without statism and associated coercive powers of land tenure.[23] Because politicians and bureaucrats at all levels participate in land ownership and control distribution, politicians and bureaucrats today are primarily responsible for creating an artificial scarcity in land. The economic rent of land has natural limits with respect to what “the market will bear,” but with politicians and bureaucrats intervening to create artificial monopolies in land titles, economic rent can be artificially manipulated, thereby creating an artificially leveraged market in land speculation — adding fuel to the existing fires of class struggles. In America this problem is noticeable in the way Congressional legislators provided railroad owners huge tracts of land through mere fiat declaration. Such huge grants eventually created a leveraged market and opened the door to widespread speculation. Individuals adopting the philosophy of statism are responsible for the problem so heatedly discussed between “capitalists” and Marxists and the debate is resolved by eliminating statism from the land title distribution process. That is another reason why the Geoist ground-rent tax idea fails. Geoists want to empower the politicians and bureaucrats to manage and collect those ground-rents — the very creatures responsible for the land shortage problem. Marx suffered from the same mistake — he wanted to use the political powers of statism to destroy “capitalism.” In essence, both men wanted the fox to guard the hen house before letting the hens run loose. Yet, Marx and George should not be dismissed so quickly. Marx claimed the social woes he witnessed were caused by a minority of people controlling the means of producing wealth. George claimed the problem was not the means of production but the distribution of wealth. Both men were partially correct but made the mistake of analyzing the problem through reductionism. A systems approach would have revealed the problem is not solely controlling the means of production or inadequate distribution of wealth, but both. Capital — wealth used to further create wealth — is a feedback mechanism in the overall flow of wealth (refer to Appendix A). Thus, anything that affects how capital is created affects both the production and distribution of wealth. In the industrial world, capital is created through modern banking — the instantaneous creation of currency; and that creation is clouded by compound interest. Thus, compound interest affects the entire flow of wealth. Add to this defect the political control of land titles. In the early stages of industrialization, land title distribution was already fixed and controlled by a minority of people. As industrialization became more popular and replaced subsistence farming, land titleholders adjusted their land usage accordingly. Thus, a majority of people were deprived of access to land and the ability to create capital. There is another area where statism creates artificial scarcity — political boundaries. Through these artificial boundaries the political elite prevent people from traveling freely from one geographical area to another. Political boundaries do not exist in nature. All such boundaries exist only between human ears. Eliminate these imaginary boundaries and people are more free to travel and migrate to pursue their happiness. Artificial scarcity results when people are prevented from physically voting with their feet. There are solutions to this age-old debate but new principles are necessary. This is accomplished primarily by eliminating the ability to create artificial scarcity. People using the mechanisms of statism are responsible for this process:
Eliminating artificial scarcity is partially possible through a policy of actual usage. Usage is established by a principle of first possession — homesteading. There are natural limits to how much land an individual can use and the principle of first possession would establish some initial boundaries. Thereafter title would be recognized through the explicit consent to transfer or abandon title. Establishing title by usage is a goal of the Geoist ground-rent tax, but the means of getting there are contaminated with the philosophy of statism — an original contributor to the problem. A Geoist ground-rent tax has some legitimate but limited applications, and cannot be used globally. A Geoist ground-rent tax could succeed — and succeed well — but only in a voluntary contractual community. However, in such a community the tax would no longer be a tax but an association fee. Land titles should be a function of people within local communities. People within local communities would recognize titles as best fits the surrounding area. Local land clubs could be used as a method of recognizing and registering land titles.[24] Thus, for example, in farming areas larger tracts of land title would be popular. In densely populated urban areas, smaller tracts would be normal. Politicians at all levels — federal, state, and local — by fiat claim title to land thereby creating the present artificial scarcity in land. There are millions of acres of land currently titled to these political corporations. In the United States alone, more than 40 percent of the land is titled to a fictional political organization.[25] If much of that land was available for actual usage and homesteading the entire land shortage debate sustained by many social reformers disappears. Without that artificial scarcity, people then truly have an option to vote with their feet. Additionally, huge tracts of land are titled to business corporations, not real people. Eliminating the statist system of land ownership and the illusion of granting “municipal” incorporation charters will do much to alleviate the problems. Straightforward calculations reveal that there is plenty of arable land available for the current world population. The land shortage problem is not an availability issue, but one of artificial scarcity and distribution. That is not to argue that someday there might not be a shortage of natural resources — the earth is a finite sphere, but only that currently sufficient land is available. By allowing politicians and bureaucrats to intervene with land title distribution, the world today witnesses an artificial scarcity of land. That artificial scarcity indeed forces the common laborer into a position of choosing between starving, stealing, or being exploited. If the concept of self is acknowledged, then too must the concept of title in land be recognized. Obtaining title through conquest defies the concept of not trespassing, and is essentially theft under color of law. Theoretically, all subsequent titles must be considered tainted because the original theft did not establish true title. Fortunately, plenty of land is available to avoid controversy — if only the land titled to fictional political and business corporations were abolished. Despite the original flawed title being obtained through conquest, many land titles today subsequently were obtained legitimately and honestly through the process of voluntary exchange. To disregard such titles would be pure chaos. However, because there is sufficient arable land for all people, the transitional solution is straightforward. First, eliminate the legal fiction of incorporation. Second, eliminate the idea that these legal fictions and political organizations can claim title to unused land. Third, acknowledge land titles only through local communities, land clubs, and possession traceable to actual usage. Acknowledging land titles through actual usage is where much contention will arise. Many Geoists claim that vacant land is held only for speculative purposes. That might be true for some titleholders, but such a statement cannot be made globally because all humans are creatures of limited knowledge. Some land might indeed be held for speculative purposes, but that is an inherent right associated with title to anything called property. Additionally, many individuals hold vacant land for future building purposes but delay development until finances and resources are finally available to put the land to actual use. To declare that all vacant land is held speculatively is limiting the argument to one set of contrived conditions and pretends to know the intent of all titleholders. Furthermore, nobody but the titleholder can distinguish between usage and what defines happiness. Nobody can define happiness except each individual. Happiness to one individual is a 50-foot square lot and a simple saltbox house. Happiness to another individual is 40 remote acres. Happiness to a commercial farmer or large factory owner uses several hundred acres or more. Actual usage also might include maintaining land in a natural pristine “park-like” condition. Declaring that all land must be put to “productive” use is arbitrary and meaningless because few people will agree to the meaning of “productive.” “Production” should not be restricted to meaning only “material progress.” Should such “non-productive” titleholders be forcibly deprived of their title or coerced into paying a ground-rent tax? The question is unnecessary because the true problem is the artificial scarcity created by the concept of statism and related fiat claims of ownership in unused land and in controlling land title distribution. There is plenty of available land, thus, focus on the true problem — eliminate the artificial scarcity and the land shortage problem disappears. Controlling land titles is another way people try to coercively redirect energy flows and create a virtual perpetual motion machine. In that respect, the 19th century social reformers all were correct. Finis. Next: Chapter 32 — Capitalism Endnotes [1] Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative, p. 4. [2] Zane, The Story of Law, p. 55. [3] Kropotkin, Mutual Aid, pp. 124–125. [4] Davidson and Rees-Mogg, “The Great Reckoning,” p. 58. [5] For example, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon penned his thoughts in What is Property? (1840), Herbert Spencer published his thoughts in his first edition of Social Statics (1851), Henry George voiced his concerns in his Progress and Poverty (1879), and Karl Marx in several treatises. [6] Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Sect. 26. [7] Geoism is the current name of the philosophy derived from the original writings of Spencer and George. Geoists originally were called Georgists. [8] Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Sect. 27. [9] Watner, “The Proprietary Theory of Justice in the Libertarian Tradition,” pp. 296–297. [10] Watner, “The Proprietary Theory of Justice in the Libertarian Tradition,” p. 295. [11] de Jasay, The State, p. 22. [12] Dalton, “Private Property and Collective Ownership,” p. 43. [13] Watner, “Libertarians and Indians: Proprietary Justice and Aboriginal Land Rights,” p. 149. [14] Josiah Warren challenged the idea in the 1830s; Martin, Men Against The State, p. 34. [15] Davidson and Rees-Mogg, The Sovereign Individual, p. 83. [16] Watner, “Libertarians and Indians: Proprietary Justice and Aboriginal Land Rights,” p. 147. [17] Berman, Law and Revolution, p. 298. [18] Zane, The Story of Law, p. 208. [19] Berman, Law and Revolution, p. 298. [20] Sakolski, Land Tenure, pp. 12–13. [21] Weinberg, “A Short History of American Capitalism,” pp. 13–25. Read Johnson and Graham’s Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheaton) 543, (1823) for emphasis. [22] Kelo et al. v. City Of New London, No. 04 — 108, Argued February 22, 2005, Decided June 23, 2005. [23] Nock, Our Enemy The State, pp. 64–72. [24] Anderson and Hill, “An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West,” pp. 15–16. [25] Ruwart, Healing Our World, p. 115, citing J. Baden, “Destroying the Environment: Government Mismanagement of Our Natural Resources,” NCPA Policy Report No. 124 (Dallas, National Center for Policy Analysis, 1986), pp. 20–21. |
||