(XXXVII) Land and Private Property
“Public Land” in Liberty Defined by Ron Paul covers:
(A) The land in liberty is owned by the people, and how to make that a reality.
(B) The difference between government land policy east & west of the Mississippi.
(C) The affects and effects of radical environmentalism.
(D) The affects and effects of eminent domain.
At this point in our readings, we’re hopefully becoming better students (and advocates) of liberty. A lesson of liberty is to be able to understand the difference between the people and government. Since they’re not the same thing, no person can easily jump to the conclusion that government ownership truly represents each and every one of us.
After all, when government abuses one of us, it’s not self-inflicted. Government is just another firm made up of men, though with the ability to force us all to obey it. We may have some input in its policies, but as single individuals that amounts to practically nothing. Private property, conversely, we individually have full control over within its respected borders. Similarly, private property firms we can associate with or not, buy from or not. A State firm doesn’t give us that freedom.
With all of that in mind, we better get back to Liberty Defined…
Land in a free society would be privately owned, Ron Paul writes in this issue.
To that end, he writes, and to help pay down debt, the government can sell federal land.
“National parks” can still be provided, but in a free-market. There is demand for them. Dr. Paul reasons that there would be customers willing to pay for them. Nothing in principle prevents capitalism in providing this.
Pure emotionalism is involved with those that say otherwise, it seems to me. Further, it’s from the mistaken belief that government is so much more trustworthy and efficient than the people in liberty.
Plus, elsewhere massive opportunities would open up to obtain new resources in the land. (Now that would be a wonderful boom to economic productivity. Americans would get back to producing things at home!)
But also to that end, we need to respect the private property already in existence.
Dr. Paul makes the excellent point that the state acts as if it is the “real” owner of all property. Our rights as property owners is greatly limited. Taxation is very high. You need approval to do a host of things that only affect your own property, etc.
Radical environmentalists, via the State, call for violations of liberty.
That is, they push policies which restrict private property rights in unethical ways. Furthermore, let’s not forget, Ron Paul has previously pointed out in Liberty Defined that private property rights prevent trespass, including when pollution is acting as a form thereof. Conservation, it should be pointed out as well, is best promoted under capitalism through the price system. In private ownership, the capital (long-term) value is owned.
And eminent domain must be reduced if we believe in liberty.
On this, Dr. Paul explains that the Fifth Amendment tried to make sure that the losers of eminent domain be adequately compensated. Paul clarifies that a problem with this, though, is that prices in the market are subjective and not objectively tied into things. It’s impossible to say what the price value worth of anything is short of voluntary agreement. (Even there, however, it’s not an exact cardinal value but an ordinal value instead.)
If it is to be used, it shouldn’t be for “private benefit,” according to Dr. Paul.
Ron Paul asks: “Since we didn’t need the federal government to manage or own the lands east of the Mississippi for worthwhile development, why should it be necessary for the government to own the land west of the Mississippi and stifle progress?” (pages 231-232)
Most of federal ownership, he reports, is to the west. But Dr. Paul additionally provides the example of Texas. They developed land rich in resources without the need of the federal government.
Before we close this blog note, Ron Paul heroically (courageously) tangentially says it was “probably a mistake” for Texas to join herself to the union. (page 234)
