|
Question: Can a man own land in his private capacity? Author Unknown Question: Can a man own land in his private capacity? There are arguments offered that claim he can't 'own' land, and therefore, needs the permission of his society (and pay for the use of that land to that society). Arguments that man is ephemeral and the land remains is not supportable. A tool can remain after the man's demise. But the man can own the tool. Arguments that only labor creates property, and therefore since man didn't make land, he can't own land as property is not supportable [Tell that to the Dutch who recovered land by their own labors!]. But a man can claim unclaimed land, labor upon it (improving it) for productive purposes (agriculture), and therefore have the right to the fruits of his labor. In fact, a man can pick up a rock, do nothing to it other than CLAIM it, and use it as his tool. Arguments that since men need land to survive, depriving a man from access to land is counter survival - to that individual. But that simple argument ignores WHAT the man is doing on the land. What happens when a man enters upon unclaimed land to:
The man defends his right to life. If there is another man who preceded him, does the second man have the right to the first man's kill? Does the second man have the right to the first man's gathered foodstuffs? Does the second man have the right to the first man's planted crops - or to plow them under and plant his own? Does the second man have the right to take the first man's home, or destroy it and make his own? Obviously, it would be injustice to deprive the first man of his, for the benefit of the second man's 'right to survive'. Yet, the proponents argue that the second man, being EXCLUDED from the first man's land and fruits, is somehow the victim! Isn't it odd, that men joined together in mutual defense of their property rights from attack by invaders. If property rights didn't exist, what would motivate these men to act? There are many other instances of faulty logic, that the anti-property rights coalition cite to support their belief in abolishing private property. But there is one constant that the proponents do not want to entertain. If land can't be owned, who has dominion? In a monarchy, the monarch has dominion over the lands, and bestows custody, in exchange for fealty. In nations that claim they're not monarchies, dominion is held by the government, or the people. Capitalism as defined, recognizes that man can own land, houses, and chattels. The form of ownership varies with nation and ideology. Some people own land with allodial title, absolutely, or qualified, others have mere interests, and subject to the will of others. Under 'not capitalism' who owns:
Collective ownership proponents say "All of us!" But that's impossible. For all rights originate in the individual, not the collective. If one man can be deprived of the exclusive right to land, no man nor aggregate group can have exclusive right to land. Anytime a group says it can do what the individual cannot, there is something terribly wrong. A collective is not the origin of rights, but the instrument of power - of individuals. Under the law of the jungle, the strong take what they need from the weak. This is also known as predatory behavior, where one's survival is at the expense of another's. The strong will rise to control the collective. A collective that abolishes private property can also eliminate individual rights to property it bestows. What the anti-capitalist collective ownership proponents don't want to accept is that the right to life is the right to defend that life from attack. The objections of the Socialist pirate is like the wolf's complaint that the sheep who get away are 'attacking' the wolf's right to exist. Whose right is superior? The one who wins? A man who holds land, for his own private property and profit, is not 'attacking' the right to life of another. A man who can't access another man's land is not being deprived of the right to life. The man who enters upon another's land, takes that land and fights the owner for possession IS the issue we should pay close attention to. The excuse of survival, expediency, lebensraum, or whatever, will underpin the 'reason' for predation upon another's person or property. Socialists / Communists / Whateverists who seek to abolish the private property rights of the current owners are thieves, pirates and plunderers. They want to 'win' the battle for possession of another's land without suffering the risks and consequences of their 'enterprise'. Whether they sugar coat their excuses, or proudly hoist the 'Jolly Roger', is not important. What IS important, is that people don't get fooled by language and art, to ignore the invasion underway. The facts are simple: Those who deny a man's right to own property, in land, or whatever, are denying him the right to live by the fruits of his labor. In its place, they want him to live by permission of the collective, to which he owes a duty. What the 'Collective' represents, is enslavement to the dominion of those who control the Collective. Do you still believe them when they promise 'all will enjoy the benefits'? Rattle your chains, O pathetic slaves, who believe that 'everyone' will own prosperity when no 'one' can own prosperity. "For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself." [Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)] Question: Can a man own land in his private capacity? Answer: NOT IF HE IS A SLAVE! |