Libertarianism and Private Property in Land

A bstract . Whether or not we have any natural right to landownership , like life and liberty , the institution of private property is a good . The utility produced by private property in land is overshadowed by the evils produced by the speculative withholding of supramarginal land unless compensatory payments are required of landowners. Such payments should be made to those living in the same "rental area" and should be of an amount that will eliminate all incentive to land speculation. It is not always either desirable or possible to require that all of one's land value be paid in compensation. and even if such payments could be accomplished, they would not always be enough to redistribute the product stemming from the "monopolization" of real property The proper compensatory payment should reflect real increases in the value of real estate since its purchase, minus the value of improvements to the site made by the owner.     

Henry George and the Institution of Private Property in Land: A Property Rights Approach

Abstract . Conflicting statements concerning whether the implementation of Henry George's single tax proposal would destroy the institution of private property in land have appeared in the literatures of economics and other disciplines. A number of writers have implied that the taxation of Ricardian rent is equivalent to land nationalization. In the main, followers of George have denied that the single tax would abolish private property in land. Their claim is based on the fact that land titles would remain in private hands under the single tax. Since the whole question of private property is beset with ideological difficulties, a property rights approach is applied to this issue in an attempt to resolve the controversy. The conclusions are that the actual implementation of George's system would not destroy private property in land and that it is incorrect to equate the single tax with land nationalization.     

Rethinking Common Versus Private Property

The Commons/Green Movement seems to have accepted that the current system is based on the principles of private property, and then has juxtaposed the notion of common property to private property. In fact, the current system is based on violations of the principle on which private ownership is supposed to rest, namely, the principle of people getting the fruits of their labor. The Commons Movement should critique the current system as an abuse of private property both in how it treats the products of labor as well as how it treats that which is not the fruits of anyone's labor (natural resources). When private property is refounded on its just foundation, then economic enterprises would be democratic firms such as worker cooperatives, and the ground would be cleared to apply special arrangements to natural resources, which are not the products of labor.     

Private Property in the Context of Community

The dominant philosophy of private land ownership—that private property exists for the benefit of its owner and that use and ownership should be determined by market forces—is not the only philosophy in the American tradition. Classical republicanism's proprietarian perspective was equally in favor of private property, but held that private property exists for the benefit of society. This article begins by presenting the proprietarian view of private property rights, drawing on the legal scholarship where this perspective has been revived. Next, I use the case of contemporary land reform in Scotland to exemplify the rationale for this perspective. Lastly, I attempt to import the lessons of Scottish land reformers without importing their model, instead considering ways in which private land ownership might be embedded in non‐market institutions in the United States.     

Henry George's Land Reform: The Distinction between Private Ownership and Private Possession

Henry George stated that the taxation of land rent would amount to the abolition of the institution of private ownership of land, thereby alienating all those who, whether for economic or ideological reasons, regard the private ownership of land as essential for social order and progress. George believed that under his proposed reform the private ownership of land would be replaced by private possession. But his distinction between ownership and possession appears to have been based on a misconception of the nature of private ownership. His proposed reform could have been more logically described as a conditional, modified, or restricted private ownership of land, rather than as the abolition of private ownership of land.     

Natural Rights,Human Rights,and Libertarianism

The present article is devoted to developing a libertarian understanding of whether natural rights may or may not underpin human rights and, if so, how. Libertarianism is first defined in terms of the nonaggression principle (NAP), in answer to the question “What is the proper use of force?” This provides a basis for the libertarian positions on property rights, taxation, and many other issues, including human rights. Various philosophical rationales for the NAP are explored, including utilitarianism, religion, and natural rights. The basis of human rights is then examined. Every ethical tradition supports the nonaggression principle, which makes it an ideal candidate for the fundamental basis of human rights. Unfortunately, other traditions expand upon human rights by adding “positive” rights that ultimately violate the NAP. The conclusion takes up the application of libertarian principles to three issues, which could be viewed as human rights questions: discrimination, abortion, and the “trolley problem.” The last one involves taking one life to save many others.     

Collective Action and Property Rights: A Planner's Critical Look at the Dogma of Private Property

The focus of this essay is success in collective action. It is based on a critical review and synthesis of the literature on collective action and property rights. I make three key arguments in the essay. First, contrary to the narrow conventional wisdom, self‐interested behavior can lead to successful collective action in both commonly managed resources and open‐access situations. The literature documents and explains a number of examples of success. Second, and nonetheless, collective action can be problematic and may require institutional responses, but privatization is not a panacea. Paradoxically, privatism can be a key source of the problems in collective action. And third, since the conventionally postulated, simple one‐to‐one relationship between a private property rights regime and an efficient outcome is not true, and given planners’ institutional interests, they should take a leading role in publicly advocating the potential viability of common property and collective action. Another important objective of the essay is to introduce to the readers a vast body of non‐traditional literature that has relevance for urban studies and planning practice. I include the literature on private property rights, ‘the tragedy of the commons’, ‘the inverse commons’, ‘the comedy of the commons’, and ‘the tragedy of the anticommons’. Cet essai s’intéresse au succès de l’action collective. Il s’appuie sur une critique et une synthèse des références sur l’action collective et les droits de propriété. Trois arguments sont exposés. D’abord, a contrario d’un avis étroit et conventionnel, l’intérêt personnel peut conduire à une action collective réussie tant pour des ressources gérées en commun que pour des situations en accès libre; des documents retracent et expliquent bon nombre de cas de succès. Ensuite, et néanmoins, une action collective peut poser problème et exiger des réponses institutionnelles, quoique la privatisation ne soit pas la panacée; paradoxalement, le ‘privatisme’ peut se révéler une source essentielle de difficultés en cas d’action collective. Enfin, comme le principe classique de relation simple, un pour un, entre un régime de droits de propriété privée et un résultat efficace n’est pas vérifié, et compte tenu des intérêts institutionnels des urbanistes, ceux‐ci devraient prendre un rôle moteur en défendant publiquement la viabilité de la propriété commune et de l’action collective. L’essai a comme autre objectif important de présenter aux lecteurs un vaste corpus de textes non traditionnels pertinent pour les études urbaines et la pratique de l’urbanisme. La conclusion inclut des références sur les droits de la propriété privée, ‘la tragédie des biens communs’, ‘les communs inversés’, ‘la comédie des communs’ et ‘la tragédie des anti‐communs’.     

土地产权制度与农户投资行为研究综述

在人地矛盾尖锐、可持续发展成为人们共识的今天,农村土地产权制度创新成为理论和政策研究较为薄弱的方面,特别是伴随着中国各项改革步伐加快,全面建设农村小康社会的实施,新的经济形式和模式不断涌现,需要对中国农村土地产权制度创新问题进行深入的研究。十六大提出全面建设小康社会的目标,使"三农"问题再度引起关注。而农户作为我国农村一个重要的经济组织,其经济收入增长,已成为解决"三农"问题的焦点。就当前而言,影响农户经济收入增长的原因错综复杂,然而农户投资仍然是其中最为直接、最为主要的影响因素。     

浙江宅基地和农房产权制度调查研究

基于2009-2010年组织的浙江10个县(市、区)农户和官员问卷调研,描述浙江宅基地与农房产权管理现状,论述各地宅基地与农房产权制度改革实践探索情况,并分析宅基地与农房产权制度改革需求和方向。调查分析表明,当前各地宅基地与产权管理现状差异较大,农户和官员对宅基地与产权制度改革需求较大。建议采取有力措施,推动宅基地与农房产权制度改革,保障农民的财产权益,提高农民的财产性收入。     

农村集体土地产权制度内涵与性质的探讨

农村集体土地产权制度是指构建农村集体土地产权结构和产权关系的制度安排.农村集体土地产权是一组权利束,在我国现行农村集体土地产权制度中,土地所有权和土地使用权构成土地产权制度的主要内容.农村集体土地产权制度是一种以所有权为基础、使用权为核心的产权形态.     

最低层次原理与中国土地产权制度变迁

本文以系统经济学的观点和资源位理论的基本思想为基础，根据产权安排的最低层次原理，分析了新中国农业发展的历史轨迹和发展趋势，指出了农业发展的阶段性波动与土地产权制度变革的对应关系，并提出农村土地产权安排必将是从家庭经济系统向更高层次经济转移，实现产业化的规模经营。     

General Property Reassessment: Relative Tax Impacts on Land and on Structures

A bstract . Many jurisdictions require periodic mass reassessment of real property to bring assessed values closer to market values and to reallocate tax burdens among property types. This paper examines the influence of general reassessment on the tax burden on land relative to that on improvements in Indiana, a state using elected local assessors, statewide mass reassessment on a regular cycle, and assessment of structures at hypothetical reproduction cost. Examination of data over the 1950-51 to 1974-75 period shows that economic growth and development reallocates property tax impact away from land: the share of land in the base declines and the effective rate paid on any given parcel of land declines. Reassessment adjusts these impacts. While reassessment increases the share of improvements in the total base, the readjustment for land is larger. From this analysis, the most recent mass assessment (1968) increased the land to improvement ratio by about 42 percent.     

中小型民营物业管理企业发展思路初探

民营物业管理企业迅猛的发展势头已引起政府、社会、行业的高度关注，但现阶段民营物业管理企业还不能与老牌物业管理企业直接抗衡。本文从分析民营物业管理企业面临的外部环境入手，探讨中小型民营物业管理企业的发展基础、面临的机遇及发展的策略。     

Private Property and the Law of Nature in Locke's Two Treatises: The Best Advantage of Life and Convenience

The study of policy lies at the intersection of economics and ethics, dealing, to a great extent, with private property. Policy design therefore assumes an understanding of the relationship between property and human nature, a matter of great interest to John Locke. Locke's teaching, however, is far from clear, often composed of a set of dual arguments. Yet close attention to the dualistic arguments is revealing: the two objects Locke associates with property—life and convenience—correspond to the two bases upon which he grounds the right to property: labor and consent. His argument reflects the changing economic nature of property, and also provides insight into the poles within which people behave according to the Law of Nature. Thus, a full explication of the relationship between Locke's Law of Nature and doctrine of property illuminates the economic and ethical principles that ought to inform policymakers and analysts.     

对国有资产搭私人股东“便车”观点的质疑

在企业中将国有股份减持到第一大股东以下,并没有改变国有资产产权主体缺位的问题,国有资产的利益得失仍处于无人问津的状态。此时,作为第一大股东的个人便会通过各种手段侵占国有资产。因此,国有资产通过"搭便车"机制来分享作为大股东的民营主体对企业高效运营所创造的收益是不可取的。