Can somebody really "own" land?

[ama_gi]

I’m currently reading Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. He says that the price of any item is divided into three parts: the wages, the rent, and the profit. Wages are the price of labor, rent in the price of land, and profit is the price of capital.

Concerning rent, Smith says: “The rent of land, it may be thought, is frequently no more than a reasonable profit or interest on the stock laid out by the landlord upon its improvement. This, no doubt, may be partly the case upon some occasions; for it can scarce ever be more than partly the case. The landlord demands a rent even for unimproved land, and the supposed interest or profit upon the expense of improvements is generally in addition to this original rent. These improvements, besides, are not always made by the stock of the landlord, but of the tenant. When lease comes to be renewed, however, the landlord commonly demands the same augmentation of rent, as if they had been all made by his own…The rent of land, therefore, considered the price paid for the use of land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give.”

The Marxist argument, that the owners of the means of production can deprive workers of part of the product of their labor, seems to ring true in this case.

As good Lockeans, we accept the labor theory of property: unowned resources become private property when somebody mixes their labor with it. So if I plant a small vegetable garden in an empty field, I own that garden.

However, if I eat all the food, and then do not grow more vegetables, it is exactly the same as if I had never “mixed my labor with it” at all. So I should not be able to exclude anybody from the land, or make somebody buy it from me and pay me for it.

If we look at it like so, we find that I did not “own” the land at all; I was merely temporarily occupying it with my property, the vegetables. The same could be said of a building: if I build a house, and 100 years later that house collapses into a pile of rubble, for all practical purposes I never built a house there at all. Somebody else could then homestead the land (after I sell any scrap metal that might be present in the rubble) and not pay me a cent for that land.

Doesn’t that make more sense than saying that somebody can “own” empty land for perpetuity?

[bearing01]

Mixing labor with the land. What labor or productivity of that labor is sufficient? What if you dug a hole and then filled it in? What if you wanted the land unchanged so you could scientifically investigate the natural habitat? The amount and extent of mixing labor with land required to claim ownership is questionable.

Does one really own land in a statist society? If you do not pay taxes on the land that you “own”, the gov’t can confiscate it from you or evict you. Therefore, do you really own it? Your name may be on the title or deed as the sole user of that land, but do you own it? Or do you rent it from the gov’t considering they can convict you for not paying your tax (or rent). The amount you paid to buy the land was just a large security deposit.

sorry I don’t have answers

[Hard_Rain]

Two words: Eminent Domain

[nirgrahamUK]

@ama gi

However, if I eat all the food, and then do not grow more vegetables, it is exactly the same as if I had never “mixed my labor with it” at all.

not true.

@ama gi

If we look at it like so, we find that I did not “own” the land at all; I was merely temporarily occupying it with my property, the vegetables.

bull, its not for 3rd parties to decide who has abandoned things in their heart of hearts and who has not.

besides these are not-problems, they do not require solutions.

[Zavoi]

@ama gi

The landlord demands a rent even for unimproved land… These improvements, besides, are not always made by the stock of the landlord, but of the tenant.

If the landlord did not ever do anything to the land, what is their justification for claiming ownership over it? It could only have been by forcibly taking it from the previous owner, or by arbitrary declaration, neither of which is a legitimate means of acquiring ownership of something.

@ama gi

The rent of land, therefore, considered the price paid for the use of land, is naturally a monopoly price.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but couldn’t the prospective tenant shop around for the cheapest land in the same way that one shops around for any other good? How is land different from other capital goods?

@ama gi

However, if I eat all the food, and then do not grow more vegetables, it is exactly the same as if I had never “mixed my labor with it” at all.

We would treat this just as we would any other piece of abandoned property: we would consider it open for re-homesteading (at least in the extreme case where it is clear that you are not going to come back).

@ama gi

If we look at it like so, we find that I did not “own” the land at all; I was merely temporarily occupying it with my property, the vegetables.

This sounds reasonable, but we should keep in mind that property rights cannot always be conceptualized as ownership of physical objects. For example, if I often use a certain area of land as a road to get from point A to point B, then I have homesteaded the right to do this, but it’s not as though there is some physical object that I have come to own.

[wilderness]

@Zavoi

This sounds reasonable, but we should keep in mind that property rights cannot always be conceptualized as ownership of physical objects. For example, if I often use a certain area of land as a road to get from point A to point B, then I have homesteaded the right to do this, but it’s not as though there is some physical object that I have come to own.

the road?

[ama_gi]

@Zavoi

This sounds reasonable, but we should keep in mind that property rights cannot always be conceptualized as ownership of physical objects. For example, if I often use a certain area of land as a road to get from point A to point B, then I have homesteaded the right to do this, but it’s not as though there is some physical object that I have come to own.

Okay, you are at liberty to use your “road” (actually a path), but you cannot exclude anybody else from using the road, or charge them for using it. Hence, you do not own it. If you invested time and money into your road (pavement, snow removal, traffic signals, etc.), then you could then claim ownership of the road and collect tolls.

The point of this post is to point out the absurdity of claiming to own “land”. That is like claiming ownership of empty space, and punishing trespassers who move through that space. Somebody might own a building, a farm, a garden, or a golf course–but not “land”.

[Snowflake]

@ama gi

The point of this post is to point out the absurdity of claiming to own “land”.

Right I guess what you own are the rights to use land in a certain way. Indeed, you cannot appropriate the gravity generated by your land, or the gamma ray radiation of every particle. The long and short of it is, if you were doing something and not hurting anyone else, you have the right to keep doing it.

[wilderness]

@ama gi

That is like claiming ownership of empty space, and punishing trespassers who move through that space. Somebody might own a building, a farm, a garden, or a golf course–but not “land”.

That would be a long argument over the land.

“Get your house off my land”

“It’s not your land”

“It’s not yours either”

“But my house is on the land”

“Well I want to use the land so get your house off the land”

?

[ama_gi]

@wilderness

That would be a long argument over the land.

No it wouldn’t.

“Get your house off my land.”

“There is an acre of unused land a mile down the road. Buzz off.”

[wilderness]

@ama gi

@wilderness

That would be a long argument over the land.

No it wouldn’t.

“Get your house off my land.”

“There is an acre of unused land a mile down the road. Buzz off.”

lol that is short. But instead of bringing the event to near conflict and verbal aggression “buzz off” and the added need to let somebody know they can’t have the land because a house is on it is having the foresight that somebody is using the land. That foresight is known as property for there is a physical boundary present called ‘somebody’s house is on the land in use’.

[EdmundCarlyle]

Mixing labor with the land.

I’m not sure why people feel to refer to alchemy in matters of jurisprudence.

[Stranger]

“Land” is an old-school term derived from feudalism, when a landlord didn’t just own a couple of fields, but an entire region, woods and rivers and mines and all.

It’s not really relevant to capital ownership like a farm.

[Amanojack]

@ama gi

Doesn’t that make more sense than saying that somebody can “own” empty land for perpetuity?

Sure, if that’s the rule people in your society agree with, then that’s probably going to be the rule you’re bound by. Of course, the opposite also holds. As someone recently pointed out, such rules are decided by human reason, and human reason generally tries to achieve utility. If a system of land ownership is considered by enough people to have high utility, it will be adopted, except if there is a monopoly on force that has different ideas.

[Esuric]

Yes, we can own land.