The price of fiat is set by the State (and the people) using taxation

Fiat money is an extension of property rights, but in a sense it (this aspect of property rights) is a negative right because the scarcity is artificial (imposed by the State). It assumes the individual not to have a right to freedom as a given, that it must be earned

The State thinks that fiat money is valuable and will exchange it for land... It is valuable because the State thinks that it is valuable. If the State decides to collect other goods, rather than fiat, when collecting taxes the value of paper money would immediately plummet.

Taxes aren't the reason that fiat is valuable because that is arbitrary.

Fiat isn't valuable.

When the State decides to stop bashing people on the head for crimes they are innocent of (or actions which they come to realise are not harmful, or (justifiably) punishable) fiat will be worthless. But they will only come to realise that when challenged not through their own thoughtful enquiry...

Fiat is valuable because the State says that it is: they force you to sell your possessions at a price set by them... Taxation is the means by which the State sets the price of fiat. Price fixing results in shortages of the commodity in question (when the price imposed is below market, as is usually the case) because it is no longer economic to sell the commodity at the false price. The State sets the price of fiat above the market price... If land (or labour) is then (as a consequence) set at a price which is too low this results in shortages (of land held in private hands).

The State likes to think that (a unit of) fiat is worth a great deal of land (land is cheap), the people will think the opposite (land is expensive). The State likes to think "they" own the land whereas the people like to think it is owned by the people.

It is a simple battle between private and public ownership... But who really cares about public ownership (of land)? Collective farming doesn't work very well because the proceeds are "shared", meaning that there is no (idiosyncratic) reward for working the land. Public ownership of land can be helpful if the land becomes "unowned" as in the case of leisure parks, in this way no one is free to farm the land (neither allotments (idiosyncratic produce, effectively the same as private ownership) nor collective farming (shared produce)) but if people are hungry this will not be tolerated. It ("unowned" land) is like having a "wilderness" which is not affected by human influence... although we can visit.

If the State acts to remove pieces of land from ownership by an individual (or private group) with the intention to make the land common land, not used for commercial purposes, then this can be beneficial. Not all land needs to be owned by someone, some of it can be left to the other species of the Earth... a wilderness which we can visit and which in time will become a resource greater to everyone than it would otherwise have been.

It can be designated (to be) land beyond (the ownership of) individuals and Nation States. A World Park?

Wednesday 1 April 2009


Update: A "World Park" (World Parkland) would be made up of land which is left aside for nobody. No one is entitled to stake a claim on the land, so long as the International body responsible denies them that right. A country with a strong need to be allocated some of the partitioned land can lobby and negotiate with the other Nations to be given some of the land...

This would be a solution to the problem of land allocation which arises when people see no reason to restrict their own access to land... take for example a hypothetical island with two inhabitants. In order to live peacefully, once they have decided not to share the island, they draw up a border and split the island in two between them. They do not (usually) think to split the island into three and to leave the third section unpopulated. The proposal for World Parks ("International Reservations"?), is to propose exactly that... (1st Apr'09)

Update: Not all of the land must be owned by someone... Some of the land can be left to the wilderness and for nature to thrive. We can leave this land alone and not develop it or grow crops on it. We can "develop" land which is allocated to people and not (the land that is) left alone. This does not mean we are not able to enter (and enjoy) the land that is set aside, only that we do not consider it to be "ours" above the other species of the earth.

The set-aside land can be said to belong to the animals... (27th April'09)