To impose a Land Value Ceiling is reactive, not proactive

It might be argued that to remove land (or other property) from a person, by force, is an aggressive act and falls within the category of aggressive behavior. But to think this way indicates a lack of appreciation for the nature of the relationship between property rights and the State. Property rights are contingent on the consent of the rest of the community...

If a person owns property, it means that they hold a certificate which indicates that the State will agree to protect their property from trespassers who are not the owner. It means the State will support the negative right of the owner to remove others from the property. If the quantity of land held by this person is reduced it means that the State is now willing to protect a smaller area of land...

Whilst the (physical) certificate held by the landowner may not have changed, the State is no longer willing to prevent other people from entering (at least a part of) the property. The State will agree that you own only a reduced quantity of land, from what you thought you had previously... The landowner is informed that they now no longer own the land they thought they did.


The landowner is still free to claim, or even insist that the land remains in their possession but if the State does not agree it is a moot point. It is not "stealing" the land because it is only owned at the discretion of the State... It is not true that the land is owned by the landowner, only that the State has agreed to prevent other people from having (unwanted) access to the land.

Ownership is only in the opinion of the State. It means the State won't remove you, the State allows you to reside unmolested on that part of the land... A claim to ownership is a statement that, where ownership might be contested, the State is on the side of the landowner. The State (or Society) agrees with the landowner that the land belongs to them (the person claiming the land).

So a more accurate form of language when describing land ownership would be to replace a statement of the form "I own that land" with something like "Everyone agrees that I own that land".

If we claim to own the land, how can we be sure that everyone agrees with that view?

Then, to alter the arrangement of property rights held among the population, is a decision of the State or the controlling bodies. Since a decision of this kind cannot be considered aggressive (no physical action has yet been taken) then it does not violate the Non-Aggression Principle. But even if the decision can be thought of as potentially violent (that it is in some sense physical, rather than just in the mind) then to withdraw property rights can still be considered retaliatory if the landowner being deprived has committed a crime. It can (perhaps) be argued that the crime that has been committed is nothing more than to have been in posseion of an excess of land rights, the ownership (regardless of how it may have come about) is then a crime.

Wednesday 29 April 2009