Just Grounds Community

For Like minded people who like to see-

The Meaning and Importance of Ownership

At the heart of many discussions on Agmates is the issue of private property rights. Many believe, as I do, that our governments and legal systems have forgotten the crucial importance of upholding and protecting this vital institution if we are to continue living in freedom and prosperity.

Without secure ownership rights – ownership as in “exclusive control”, not some watered down concept where the government is in charge, with owners reduced to nothing more than unpaid park rangers – neither accumulation of wealth nor market exchange can take place. Without accumulation of wealth, the tremendous advances in productivity resulting from capitalism could not occur. And without market exchange, we would be living in the poorest of conditions, only able to consume what we could personally produce. Nor can we be truly free unless security of ownership is upheld to protect us against the descent of democracy into majority rule and totalitarian government.

It is very disappointing that some do not understand this. They have not learned the lessons of history, and still cling to the false hope that raiding property belonging to others, then spreading the wealth around, will lead to endless free lunches for everyone.

Even more disappointing is the way some beaver away, often at taxpayer expense, doing everything they can to subvert the very meaning of ownership in furthering their attack on the sanctity of property.

They try to make out that ownership no longer means exclusive control; that it now means the right to buy and sell, but little else. We hear concepts such as building “entitlements”, as if building was a privilege, separate from ownership, bestowed upon some lucky owners through the good grace of the government. We are persuaded to think of ourselves not as owners, but as custodians or caretakers, restricted to carrying out “sustainable development”; but only if the government has “released” our land. And if the government wants our land they don’t buy it, they “resume” it; because, well, you know, it really was theirs all along.

This is all nonsense.

Ownership is not a socially useful concept unless it means exclusive control. The idea that decisions made by bureaucrats and politicians are better than those made by owners is preposterous. When such systems have arisen in the past, they have always led to poverty and loss of freedom. If we let our opponents get away with it this time, the outcome will be no different.

Tags: government, ownership, private, property

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Carol Petith on January 28, 2010 at 4:07pm

Alex
And we have all seen the results of government control. Bad planning everywhere that government has interfered, so it cannot be said that "Oh we have to be in control of planning".
I don't have to go too far to see the results of their wonderful plans. Chaos on the roads, congestion everywhere. Standards that you and I would not be allowed to get away with. Not to mention all the money that is wasted on some of their plans and then they are scrapped. No accountability. At least if you own a property you have to plan properly in the first place as you don't have money to throw away with any hairy brained schemes. So Ownership as far as I am concerned should be the number one priority when making decisions on a government level. Not wanting to take away ownership and turn us all into government slaves.
If private property owners left alone to work things out for themselves couldn't do a better job with their properties than what has been done by the bureaucrats then we should all throw in the towel

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 28, 2010 at 11:19pm

Very well put Alex - it has been my experience that very few people truly understand what they own when they buy a piece of land.

And of course, if you don't know what you own, you don't know what government are taking off you.

Which is what government are banking on.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laurel Ender on January 29, 2010 at 1:23am

I was amazed at just the local councils restrictions on my small chunk. any earth works over 100mm???
is supposed to have a $97 fee paid for approval??
I am sure there a slew of others as daft, and inane too.
yes Ownership should be just that.
not this nutty ,well you pay and pay and we will tell you what to plant or not etc etc.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 29, 2010 at 9:34am

Laurel - you will find that in most cases, people charged under environmental laws, are taken to court for not getting approval under the planning acts.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Thompson on January 29, 2010 at 9:53am

Well put Alex,

Thanks for that.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alex Davidson on January 29, 2010 at 11:17am

Yes, all part of the program. A bit like the tactics used in Nazi Germany or Communist China - dob in your neighbours...

I like the way Michael Shaw puts it all in perspective in this video. His experiences are frighteningly similar to those we have experienced here in Australia.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 29, 2010 at 12:24pm

Keeping in touch with Freedom Advocates is beneficial in order to understand what may come here next, as the Australian situation is a direct duplicate of the American - obviously from an Aust point of view and in reference to Aust legislation.

Michael did a good interview with Sue Maynes from Farmers Land Owership Rights in Australia about 3 years ago. It's still on his site.

Alex re your comment - "A bit like the tactics used in Nazi Germany or Communist China - dob in your neighbours..."

I am personally finding that govt data which was once available on the net is either being changed or removed. The State Library has refused to supply some people with old legal data as well.

A fellow I know in victoria was chasing a High Court Land act from an older decision - rang the library, the DPP, etc trying to get a copy, only to be told there was no such act.

He rang me, I searched Austlii and it was not even on the repealed list.

He then rang the High Court who sent him a copy of this apparently non-existent case!

That tells me we should all be very worried.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 29, 2010 at 12:31pm

Another excellent site is Pacific Legal Foundation - a public-interest legal organization that litigates for property rights, limited government, free enterprise and a balanced approach to environmental regulation, in courts across the country. http://community.pacificlegal.org/Page.aspx?pid=183

They handle many environmental cases - some quite extraordinary - such as people unable to re-enter their homes after a hurricane moved some kind of mouse onto them.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 29, 2010 at 12:51pm

Dennis - you will be interested in what is Unsustainable I think -

Here is a list of the things that the The Global Biodiversity Assessment Report directed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) considers Unsustainable. Read them carefully and work out where a human life can be supported according to these rules:

FARMING & AGRICULTURE:
Agricultural development (impervious surfaces)
Agriculture
Chemical Fertilizers
Disturbance of the Soil Surface
Farmlands, Rangelands
Fencing of Pastures or Paddocks
Grazing of Livestock: cows, sheep, goats, horses
Herbicides
Land use that serves human needs
Large hoofed animals, compaction of soil, reducing filtration
Modern Farm Production Systems
Pastures
Pastures - Rangelands
Plantations

TIMBER PRODUCTION
Forestry Urbanization (impervious surfaces)
Harvesting of Timber
Logging Activities

FISHING
Aquaculture
Fisheries
Fish Ponds

HUMAN RESOURCES
Cemeteries, derelict lands, rubbish tips, etc
Dams, Reservoirs, Straightening Rivers
Fossil Fuels – Used for driving various kinds of machines
Paved and Tarred roads, highways, rails
Power Line Construction
Railroads
Sewers, Drain Systems, Pipelines
Technology Improvements

HUMAN ACTIVITIES
Consumerism
Golf Courses
Human Population Density
Modern Hunting
Population Growth
Scuba Diving
Ski Runs
Synthetic drugs

HUMAN HABITATION
Building Materials
Floor and Wall Tiles
Fragmentation of Habitat
Human-Made caves of brick and mortar, concrete and steel
Industrial Activities
Private Property

HUMAN RELIGIOUS, SOCIAL & POLITICAL ETHICS
Economic systems that fail to set a proper value on the environment
Fragmentation
Inappropriate Social Structures
Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions
Modern Attitudes toward nature
Weaknesses in Legal and Institutional Systems

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alex Davidson on January 29, 2010 at 2:05pm

I don’t think it is a case of what may come here – it already has. The process of infecting local council plans with Agenda 21 is well advanced – take a look at the first few pages of the Hills Shire Environmental Management Plan, for instance. They unashamedly acknowledge the plan’s genesis in Agenda 21.

I was one of those who took an active role in opposing this plan when it was introduced in 2005. I didn’t get very far. At one of the public meetings they took the microphone from me because I dared to point out errors of fact in the plan, such as a claim – which was the premise used to justify some of the conclusions – that 100 million hectares of agricultural land has been lost due to the encroachment of cities since 1990! (The total size of all urban areas in Australia is actually about 0.3% of the landmass, or around 2 million hectares).

When the final plan came before the council, the reference to the 100 million hectares was gone, but not the conclusions it led to.

And although I had a few things to say about it at the meeting, the plan was passed, complete with 141 goals and 461 objectives. Now each of those goals and objectives are gradually being translated into action. One example is new ‘Vegetation Classification Maps”, which classify all land in the shire into 21 (a nice round number) categories, 8 of which are deemed “threatened ecological communities”, such as the rock, sand and scrub on parts of my own land.

The whole thing is outrageous.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Janet H. Thompson on January 29, 2010 at 2:07pm

VERY well said, Alex. I agree whole heartedly with your post. Hernando de Soto is a Peruvian economist and author, and he says that until Peru grants secure title of land to individuals, the country will not advance. We've been to Peru. In large part, the country is living as they have for thousands of years. Not bad, if you don't mind being middle-aged at the age of 25.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Janet H. Thompson on January 29, 2010 at 2:09pm

Wow, Suzi...scary stuff. I'm currently reading "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. This fits right in with his theories. (Liberal as in the non-classical, US-use of the term.)