Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: the FORCE of Property: People's Freedom to Produce
Message-ID: <431@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 10:24:55 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.431
Posted: Mon Jan 21 10:24:55 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 07:35:42 EST
References: <4521@cbscc.UUCP> <423@whuxl.UUCP> <1182@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs
Lines: 67

> > A Response to Ken Montgomery's query:
> > from me: tim sevener:
> >  "As I was walking that ribbon of highway
> >   I saw a sign said , "No trespassing"
> >   But the other side of the sign said nothing
> >   That sign was made for you and me"    Woody Guthrie
> 
> Why should land not be subject to the same inviolateness as any
> other kind of property?
> 
> Ken Montgomery  "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
> ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
> kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]

Earlier I pointed out how naked FORCE had been used to claim the Indians
territory (they had no concept of "owning" land, merely staked out territories).
The same thing took place in the expansionist days of the Roman Republic.
The aristocracy took control of large portions of Italy and other conquered
territories as part of their participation in Roman wars of expansion.
The aristocracy's large estates ("latifundia") were often unproductive.
But what did it matter?  The aristocracy had plenty to live off from their
control of the land.  Moreover they displaced the smaller Roman farmers
and replaced their labor with that of slaves.  The smaller Roman farmers
were often more productive in their use of the land.  But they were excluded
from working the land because it was "owned" by the Roman aristocracy.
The same thing that occurred in Rome is a common problem in many Third World
countries.  The Somoza family owned 70% of all the land in Nicaragua before
the Sandinista Revolution.  In this case and many others in which a landed
aristocracy owns most of the land, much of the land goes idle.  It is left
idle both for the enjoyment of the aristocracy, and because there is little
incentive to make it productive.  The aristocracy is guaranteed a portion of
their sharecroppers income anyway.  While the peasants would often be glad
and have been proven to work very hard to make the land productive if they
were given the chance, they are excluded from making the land productive
by the claims of private ownership.
Some Economists who study development have examined successful cases of
development- the US, Japan, and other countries.  They have concluded that
land reform, or the distribution of land to a number of small farmers
rather than concentration of ownership by an elite has been a pivotal factor
in successful development.  They conclude that agriculture is critical to 
successful development -it is the base for industry rather than the other way
around.  It should also be noted that both the US and Japan have done the
opposite of countries such as Ethiopia: rather than penalizing agriculture
they have provided price supports and subsidies, extension services and other
aid to make agriculture profitable for the small producer.
This conclusion supports neither Libertarianism nor collective socialism.
For it suggests that some limits to property are vital to people's well-being:
so long as a few people (like the Somozas) monopolize onwership that 
productivity will lag, and people will be mired in poverty and hungry.
Thus some intrusion on property rights, implicit in land reform, is good.
On the other hand, it shows that many small farmers actually owning their
land are more productive than large collective farms. This is in line with
the notion that people are motivated by their self-interest to work harder.
The critical factor here is the DISTRIBUTION of wealth and the means of
production.  Just saying that all property rights are absolutely sacred
(and somehow "fair") seems indefensible to me.
Did not the kings claim that they in some sense "owned" all the land in their 
realm?  Is this then a case of Libertarianism? If not, why not?
If some corporation or individual comes to control (or group of corporations
and individuals) most of the economy what does the freedom of property 
mean to the vast majority who own nothing?
THIS is the problem for Libertarianism: it is the problem I have already
raised with case of industrial monopoly. It is the problem posed by
saying property rights are absolutely sacred without considering the
justification or original source of such rights, nor their consequences.
 
tim sevener    whuxl!orb