The relationship between property and liberty
Political ·Friday July 16, 2010 @ 21:01 EDT (link)
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." Â Frederic Bastiat
In effect, there are layers of ownership: the real owner of the land pays no taxes (rent), can sell it at will, and can build anything he wants on it; no restrictions (except the usual non-infringement on others' rights to life, liberty, and property). In a free society that's the individual; in a feudal society, that's the lord. The next layer is a lessee (in current society, a so-called home or business owner). They have some property rights, but the lord's always trump theirs. The lord might even enforce those rights (or instead decide to take the property and give it to someone else). They can do a lot, but they are regulated by the real owner (the amount of regulation is your degree of private property rights, less absolute right, of course). The next layer would be either a renter or a plantation with (Southern-style chattel) slaves; the plantation "owner" may allow the slaves some claim to shacks, or sleeping areas, or found or made or given goods, but they can be taken at any time and he does not need to provide any real justice. At the bottom of the pyramid, this slave can be abused by the serf and the lord; not a good place to be in at all.
Allodial title is a name for the true ownership mentioned above. It might be one thing that would turn a nation into a stateless society as people obtained and capitalized on full dominion over their property (no taxes, eminent domain, or police access). Private property must exclude any other jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is law through violence. It means somebody else has control over your property, so you do not actually own it. You effectively lease it at the pleasure of the state, and they can take it away, charge rent, etc.
If one supports the violence of the state (taxation, regulation, by force), then either (a) one believes "the state" owns everything or (b) one supports violence as a legitimate means to accomplish one's goals. The first is illegitimate; that was never intended in any country except communist ones, and land was always taken by force, and the founders believed in private property to a greater extent than now even though they erred and allowed for some infringements; there can be no such thing as collective ownership (who can sell it, etc.; see The Objectivist Ethics etc. on private property and collective ownership). So once the veil is taken away, then what? We claim that our local legislatures own all property in their zone of control? Not them personally; the current officeholder? But if the property is to be transferred by a vote, then they don't own it either. So it's either unowned (and claimable) or owned by whoever's name is on the title deed (since the voluntary trading that brought it into possession could and likely would have happened the same way in a free society) and they are being illegitimately charged rent.
In a similar vein, the video The Story of Your Enslavement (text) contains some explanatory elements relating liberty and truly private property, free from the coercive interference of the state. Also related: Can the unseen be contracted away? where I consider the rights of property within other property (e.g., a car in an employer-owned parking lot, or even an individual).
