Andrew Lilico: Is it possible privately to own land?

[chem1st]

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thecolumnists/2012/04/andrew-lilico-is-it-possible-privately-to-own-land.html

 

Andrew Lilico: Is it possible privately to own land?

 

In a previous piece, I discussed a little of the concept of property and its role in Conservatism. The "property" I had in mind there was things like spears, money, shares, cars, factories, jewels. Some readers may have wondered how land fitted in, for there was a traditional notion that no land could be held privately against the Crown (indeed, in some cultures, such as the Teutonic system in Europe and many New World cultures, matters went even further and land was held only in common). This is of importance in relation to at least four issues:

 

a) public footpaths across land, and whether (and, if so, under what circumstances) landowners can forbid their use;

 

b) compulsory purchase of land;

 

c) whether those private citizens owning a particular area of land either individually or collectively can claim sovereignty over it (e.g. do the citizen of Cornwall own Cornwall?) - the doctine of "self-determination";

 

d) land taxes.

 

To see the special issues raised by land-as-property, let's consider a conceptually-related question: could a private citizen own a piece of air-space? I don't mean: could that citizen own something that was in the airspace (say, a balloon or an airplane). Neither do I mean: could a citizen own the gas (the air). My question is: could the private citizen own the space?

 

According to the Lockean concept of property we explored previously, in which property is created by combining the common treasury with my labour, it would seem I cannot own airspace - for what labour of mind creates or improves it? Airspace simply exists. It isn't owned by anybody. It is arguable that even the Crown merely controls or possesses airspace - it doesn't own it.

 

A person cannot own airspace, and nor can they own land. For they didn't create the space, it already existed.

What they can do, is occupy airspace, and land. By doing so, they deprive others of occupying the space, unless it is held in common and freely accessible to all, and for that, they should pay compensation.

 

Likewise, the question of the private ownership of land is not one of whether private persons can possess or control or even trade claims on the use of land. The question is whether I can truly own land the way that I can truly own a spear.

 

I say: No. But what I mean by that is quite narrow, as with the airspace. You can own buildings - because buildings are created with labour and other non-land property. You could own trees, if they were planted by humans. You could own soil, if labour and non-land property have improved it (sufficiently) permanently. (e.g. Some soils react chemically with inputs to create new soils such as the Amazonian "terra preta".) But you cannot (normally?) own the space (the "land") in which the buildings and the soil sit because, as with the airspace, no property or labour has contributed to its creation.

 

He makes some fair points. Especially about mixing ones labour. If a man grows a plant, it is clear he owns the plant, but the land upon which he grows it cannot be owned.

 

Fourth, land taxes. In a previous piece, I argued against wealth taxes. But the reasoning of this post suggests that land taxes are not wealth taxes, for land cannot be part of a private citizen's property. The land is owned (if by anyone) by the Crown. So the Crown might legitimately charge a fee for its use. I do not think such a charge should even be described as a "tax". It is more like a usage fee.

 

Overall then, in this essay I have argued that private citizens cannot own land, and that, if correct, this is important to four interesting contemporary political issues.

 

He is right, a land tax is not a wealth tax. But we should not pay a tax/usage fee unto the Crown. It should be paid out to all citizens of the sovereign state.

 

What do you think?

[mumkin]

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thecolumnists/2012/04/andrew-lilico-is-it-possible-privately-to-own-land.html

 

 

 

A person cannot own airspace, and nor can they own land. For they didn't create the space, it already existed.

What they can do, is occupy airspace, and land. By doing so, they deprive others of occupying the space, unless it is held in common and freely accessible to all, and for that, they should pay compensation.

 

 

 

He makes some fair points. Especially about mixing ones labour. If a man grows a plant, it is clear he owns the plant, but the land upon which he grows it cannot be owned.

 

 

 

He is right, a land tax is not a wealth tax. But we should not pay a tax/usage fee unto the Crown. It should be paid out to all citizens of the sovereign state.

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

The mods would banzor me for life if I truly expressed my thoughts on here:hihi:

[mike-s]

The mods would banzor me for life if I truly expressed my thoughts on here:hihi:

 

Would that be about the subject or chem1st? :hihi:

[andygardener]

What do you think?

 

I think Mr Lilico has too much time on his hands. I also think he looks like a Mitchell and Webb character.

[mort]

I'm sure that it would have been possible to add this to one of the many existing threads on a subject which has been done to death already.

 

closing.

 

do not repost as a new topic.