> Dear Visionaries,
> Is land, private land, public in any sense? I think yes, in the
> sense that the society must agree to respect the bundle of rights
> associated with the ownership of this and all other goods or
> services. Since the police are only effective at the margin, it
> requires a collective act of agreement, a covenant, to protect private
> property. Therefore, all property is a public fact or it is not a
> fact at all.
> In my view, environmentalists are attempting to renegotiate the
> social contract with land owners regarding the bundle of rights that
> private land ownership implies. Currently some people in society
> recognize some rights of land owners that others do not. That's the
> problem. Not surprisingly, land owners prefer to identify with the
> groups in society that recognizes the largest bundle of rights.
> Until this disagreement can be reconciled within society, the land
> owners' rights are tenuous in some areas particularly.
> Therefore, I believe it is in the interest of both the landowners and
> the society to resolve, to the extent possible, which bundle of
> rights society will recognize now and in the immediate future. This
> is part of what the Nov. election was about in general and Helen
> Chenoweth's election in particular, i.e., society's attempt to
> reconcile private and public interests in land and water in the West.
> Once reconciled, in a dynamic society, it is very likely that
> these rights will again become the subject of debate in the more
> distant future and the cycle of uncertainty will begin again.
> For additional information on the implicit social covenant of a
> market economy, see J.F.A. Taylor, The Masks of Society, "The Ethical
> Foundations of the Market." (The difficulty of developing a market
> economy in the former U.S.S.R. relates, in part, to the lack of
> agreement within their society as to which rights to recognize for
> whom across an economy's set of resources. As a result, the Russian
> Mafia is doing a good business by enforcing private rights through
> violence or threats of violence.)
> Steve Cooke
>
Hi Steve,
This is well said. Private ownership is a part of our social contract.
But the fundamental difference is in our Constitution which defines our
rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" which is limited
by not infringing on others same said rights. The problem is defining an
ability for someone with no economic or vested interest to dictate to a
private individual what he/she may do. On this hinges the great debate.
As any economist will tell you, the basic definition a society gives to
private property dictates it's prosperity or poverty. You are correct in
stating that this debate will be continual.
Best,
Andy