In response to David Benjamin's posting, whether the kind of
property that can have its legal ownership changed by democratic
mandate every morally belonged in any absolute sense to its
previous legal owner is likely to be disputed.
There is a very good historical example of this in the Old Testament
in the Book of Nehemiah, where moneylenders who have taken
land, produce and even children into slavery as payment of
interest on debt were made to give back all they had taken down
to the last percent. I think this legal and historical precedent is very
relevant as contrast to David's assertions in a number of interesting
ways.
Originally pre-agricultural societies held their hunting grounds
as commons. Generally subsequent history will support the view that
these lands only came into private ownership through the force of
arms. Consequently anarchist writers have made the assertion that
"property is theft".
The practical issue of land reform e.g. in Zimbabwe has to take
into account the practical economics of land use, as experience
as a "war veteran" does not neccessarily mean that one will be
a productive farmer. If the above considerations lead those
engaged in the democratic process to claim wider interests
and involvement in the moral rights of land ownership a balanced
position between these perceived moral rights and practical
economic considerations is likely to result in a form of land tax,
such that those engaged in the large-scale private use of enclosed
land have to pay for this privilege to the moral owners; i.e. the
populace as represented by the state. In purely practical terms
if this rate is set too highly then farming will become uneconomic
and land values will decline; if set too low this tax will neither
adequately fund other aspects of development such as health and
education, nor properly compensate the perceived loss of moral
ownership rights.
Richard Kay
[log in to unmask]
> David Benjamin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>DEMOCRACY is the process by which the majority vote
>away private property from the minority. It is a
>form of "legalized theft."
>No majority ever has the right to vote that they
>can take away someone else's private property.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|