The proper right of ownership of land or other real property is something I’ve wrestled with for some time, and will probably continue to do so in the future. I certainly won’t solve it tonight.
Essentially, possession of property exists in one of two states: allodial title or fee simple. What’s the difference? To paraphrase, fee simple grants absolute ownership of property, except as “limited by the four basic government powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat”. Allodial title grants absolute ownership of property, but for the decision of the sovereign. Hobbes would argue that these two are essentially the same, as the decision of the sovereign is law, and that as such, the sovereign has reign to at any time to exercise the same government powers which limit fee simple ownership (see Leviathan, audio and Project Gutenberg links at bottom of article).
Fee simple bothers me, because that for which one has already paid or has taken by some reasonable force (I will not sidetrack on what might be a reasonable use of force right now, suffice to say I believe such exists), should not be subject to loss due to one’s inability to contribute or perhaps temporary hardship. Your ownership should be absolute to the extent that you require no access to common services and infrastructure, and that you are able to provide completely for your own welfare within the confines of your own property. Difficult in any case, I’m not sure whether it’s possible or not.
This is in direct conflict with my belief that the primary, and almost sole (again, will not diverge here) purpose of government is the defense of the property of its jurisdiction, and that the contribution to such defense is the responsibility of all property holders under the sovereign. Perhaps it would be reasonable that those who do not pay are subject, then, to the loss of defense of their property from within. That is to say, the right or worthiness of the individual to hold said property in lieu of remittance for sovereign defense of ownership then falls to the community – the peers, if you will – of the owner. They then have a decision to allow the propertyholder to continue his allodial title, and perhaps even to provide defense for said title of their own volition in the event of other internal or external attack on right to hold, or to take – by force or by lack of protection – the property as their own, and to take over responsibility for payment of its defense to the sovereign.
A related idea that I have considered is that a man should be free to offer for sale to another the fruits of his labor at his own discretion – specifically, this would be counter to the provisions of the Civil Rights movement. Not to advocate that discrimination based upon any arbitrary characteristic is reasonable, indeed it’s generally a stupid precept. However, at least in our current society, there are certain members whose presence is generally not desired within certain communities, and I have considered at some length whether it would be reasonable for merchants to be able to refuse goods and services to those they consider undesirable, such that it would be an impediment to the undesirable’s ability to remain within a region where their presence was not desired. If there were sufficient merchants who collectively agreed that a person or persons’ presence was unwanted, it would provide strong incentive for that individual to either find more accommodating residence. Alternatively, I cannot find fault in violent uprising from one who is oppressed in order to take what is required to provide for himself or his family.
Now I have wandered much farther from the topic of property rights than I had intended, but I’ve at least shifted some of these thoughts and ideas to copy. These are simply theories, and always evolving, but it gives a reference for me to reflect upon in the future and see how they may have evolved.
