Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site loral.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard
From: simard@loral.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Property rights, rent control, et. al.
Message-ID: <145@loral.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-May-84 21:52:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: loral.145
Posted: Thu May 17 21:52:06 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 19-May-84 00:12:49 EDT
References: <140@oliven.UUCP>, <3268@fortune.UUCP> <129@loral.UUCP>, <1863@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Organization: Loral Instruments, San Diego
Lines: 40

A point I assumed (incorrectly, it seems) to be sufficiently obvious to
need no discussion in my first writing is that if one has produced an
item, and is therefore entitled to the benefit of its ownership, one may
(and usually does) exchange it for something else, or more commonly, a
representative of that wealth, which we call money, and by virtue of
that exchange, obtains the same rights to that property as s/he had
to the original item.

No, landlords and other property owners did not create the land they
own.  Nevertheless, a simple fact is that they are paying on a mortgage
on their particular units of property, and everyone else is not.  They
are therfore exchanging produced wealth for that land and are entitled
to the privileges of ownership.

This raises a ticklish question: "If I am buying a piece of land from
someone who bought it from someone, who...".  Extended back throught history,
where does the chain begin?  Who owned that property in the first place, to
sell it to anyone?  Whatever the resolution, it is now, properly or otherwise,
necessary to exchange produced wealth, or its proxy, money, for the right
to control a piece of land.  Were it not so, then by what right could you
exclude me from entering your front door and setting up housekeeping,
gratis, in your place of residence?  After all, your rent payments are to
someone with no right to control that property, therefore...

If land is, as your letter seems to imply, something that cannot be owned,
then why the dickens do I send a check to a mortgage company every month?
If you can convince them that the land my home occupies is "common heritage"
and that I should be excused from making that monthly payment, I would
be extraordinarily grateful.

Renters have rights; they are exchanging wealth for the privilege too.
But the renter is using the property of another, and compensating
the owner for that privilege.  It is the owner's prerogative to decide
the conditions and cost of that agreement, and the renter's to accept
or decline the arrangement.  Within reasonable legal and ethical bounds,
that is as it should be.


Ray Simard