Re: Final Challenge to Socialists

Michael Lorrey (
Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:51:22 -0500

Samael wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Lorrey <>
> To: <>
> Date: 14 December 1998 17:35
> Subject: Re: Final Challenge to Socialists
> >Samael wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Michael Lorrey <>
> >> To: <>
> >> Date: 12 December 1998 01:04
> >> Subject: Re: Final Challenge to Socialists
> >
> >Of course you can buy them. Either they just sit there and nobody does
> anything
> >with them, or somebody or every body organizes a system of making sure that
> >everybody gets the maximum utility out of a given unit of resources. If the
> >resources are offered to the highest bidder, then the original owner
> (typically
> >the government, which in a democracy is supposed to represent everybody) is
> >getting maximum value for that resource. If you are getting the maximum
> value
> >for it, then you can hardly say it was stolen from you, unless it was sold
> >without your permission. If you are a voluntary member of a body politic
> which
> >does not require your individual permission, then nothing was stolen from
> you.
> How about renting it out rather than selling it. This gives a constant
> return for the government/population, does away with the need for taxation
> (at least partially) and means that you can't destroy the land because it
> doesn't belong to you.

Ha, thats funny. Ever heard the saying,"Its only a rental!"?, usually just before someone is about to seriously abuse something. Rented government land is among the most abused land on earth, with the exception of government land that the public is excluded from (the Nellis Range). Moreover, what do you base the return on? If I buy 1 acre for $1000, I've paid that for unimproved land. If I rent it for $50 a year, but put $100,000.00 in improvements into it, will the government now raise my rent because the land is worth more now? Or will they deduct my improvements from the rental cost, thus giving me 2,000 years of free use of the land? Given that sort of time range, I might as well be able to buy it, since my rental agreement will probably outlive the government it is with. Moreover, since I have rented the land, it makes it more difficult for other people to use the land, since I am not able to sublet the land to others without the permission of the government, so your original complaint about making property unusable by others is more severe under a lease/rental system.

Ownership confers responsibility, which is why private land is on average much better managed than public land.

NOTE: Latest news on private conservation: in the past 10 years, the amount of land in private land trusts and conservancies with 'conservancy easements' has more than doubled, according to the Washington based Land Trust Alliance. There are more than 5 million acres under such protection now, which is an area about the size of New Jersey. Additionally, there are over 10 million acres protected by national organizations involved in wildlife and farmland protection. Thus, private conservation efforts have added more land here in the US far exceeding the amount of land the government itself is adding to protected areas. Moreover, since the land is still usable by the owners, they can manage the property themselves, which allows for better stewardship than if the land were just another lot on a government bureaucracies roster.

Mike Lorrey