The Fascist Effect of ARI

Bill that's fair enough but it sounds like splitting hairs over what is called "public property". On the one hand legislators and judges preside in buildings funded voluntarily are no longer considered presiding in "public" buildings but they are being used for "public" use, in the other sense forcible taxation is used to fund buildings for legislators and judges to preside in for "public" use. While there is an important distinction of how the property was funded to be for public use they are still both for public use. So I don't think it's necessarily a big misnomer to say laissez-fair Capitalism does not exclude "public property" as it is the funding of it that matters.

You say it's "nominally" public property if it serves a government function, so why not say it is public property?

The reason is that technically it is not the property of the government nor of society as a whole, but remains private property insofar as it is subject to the conditions under which private owners voluntarily transferred it to the government. The primary right of property resides with the producer, who can transfer his product to others either conditionally or unconditionally. If he transfers it unconditionally, then the agent to whom it is transferred becomes the new owner. If he transfers it conditionally subject to certain restrictions, then the agent to whom it is transferred is bound by those restrictions, which express the decisions of the original owner.

Under laissez-faire capitalism, if citizens voluntarily transfer their property to the government so that it can carry out its proper functions, then the government becomes not the new owner of the property, but merely the agent of the private owners who transferred it to the government expressly for that purpose.

The adjectives "private" and "public" refer to the actual owner(s) of the property, which in the case of government buildings are the private citizens who financed their construction. Government officials are the representatives of the private citizens who elected them, not the citizens' rulers. For the same reason, these officials do not "own" the property which private citizens give them to perform the government's functions. Private citizens remain the owners of the property with the government's officials merely their agents.

- Bill

Post 41

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 7:10am

Bill Dwyer:

The reason is that technically it is not the property of the government nor of society as a whole, but remains private property insofar as it is subject to the conditions under which private owners voluntarily transferred it to the government. The primary right of property resides with the producer, who can transfer his product to others either conditionally or unconditionally. If he transfers it unconditionally, then the agent to whom it is transferred becomes the new owner. If he transfers it conditionally subject to certain restrictions, then the agent to whom it is transferred is bound by those restrictions, which express the decisions of the original owner.

Under laissez-faire capitalism, if citizens voluntarily transfer their property to the government so that it can carry out its proper functions, then the government becomes not the new owner of the property, but merely the agent of the private owners who transferred it to the government expressly for that purpose.

Well, what if the property is transferred unconditionally to the government? Isn't the government the new owner? What you say regarding government sounds more like leasing (conditional use) than ownership, contrary to real estate law and practice, and contrary to what you said in post 37:

Property, by its very nature, implies the exclusive right of use and disposal -- the right of some people rather than others to determine its use and disposition.

Well, the "some people" are the elected officials and their designees. What is so wrong about a government owning property on which it operates? How is it any different from a private corporation owning property? With your position on government applied to the corporation, it is the stockholders that own the deeded property of a corporation. But can anyone of them or a group of them take an action that goes with ownership? No, it is only the management that has been elected to run the corporation or their designees who can.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 11/01, 7:14am)

Post 42

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 8:58am

Merlin I'm confused as well. When Bill says "Property, by its very nature, implies the exclusive right of use and disposal -- the right of some people rather than others to determine its use and disposition" Well in private property transactions we do that all the time. We transfer with that property conditions on its use and I would imagine for a government to be able to even function would require that the original property owners can't come on any whim and throw everyone off the property while deliberations are taking place or a vote on legislation is occuring. I'm also confused why you can't have a public entity seeking property that is funded by voluntary donation? Just as a non-profit organization routinely acquires property for its own use through private donations the government can very well do the same.

Post 43

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 6:37pm

Yeah, but guys, don�t you see that as soon as the government spends a dollar in a way I disagree with that I have the right to get my three bricks back?

Post 44

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 8:10pm

Responding to my Post #40, Merlin wrote,

Well, what if the property is transferred unconditionally to the government? Isn't the government the new owner?

Of course, but the property isn't transferred unconditionally; it's transferred subject to certain conditions. The government's officials must use it to serve the proper functions of government. They cannot, for example, spend the money on a vacation resort in the Bahamas, which they could do if they owned it outright.

What you say regarding government sounds more like leasing (conditional use) than ownership...
Right, in a way, it is like leasing. The lessee doesn't own the property he's leasing; the landlord does.
...contrary to real estate law and practice, and contrary to what you said in post 37:

"Property, by its very nature, implies the exclusive right of use and disposal -- the right of some people rather than others to determine its use and disposition."

Well, the "some people" are the elected officials and their designees. What is so wrong about a government owning property on which it operates?

The "some people" are the private citizens who, in electing their representatives and financing their activities, designate them as their principal agents. Our representatives in government are not the owners of the government buildings in which they work. They are the agents of the owners; the owners are the private citizens that financed them.

How is it any different from a private corporation owning property? With your position on government applied to the corporation, it is the stockholders that own the deeded property of a corporation. But can anyone of them or a group of them take an action that goes with ownership? No, it is only the management that has been elected to run the corporation or their designees who can.

The arrangement is similar. A corporation is a contractual relationship between the principal agents and shareholders, who own the corporation, but delegate control and decision-making power to its officers, executives and managers. The latter serve as their agents and are therefore a contractual extension of their will. In the same way, our representatives in government are a contractual extension of the will of private citizens who elected them to office and who finance their activities.

Replying to the same post, John Armaos wrote,

Merlin I'm confused as well. When Bill says "Property, by its very nature, implies the exclusive right of use and disposal -- the right of some people rather than others to determine its use and disposition" Well in private property transactions we do that all the time. We transfer with that property conditions on its use and I would imagine for a government to be able to even function would require that the original property owners can't come on any whim and throw everyone off the property while deliberations are taking place or a vote on legislation is occuring.

Right; that's because, as the citizens' agents, government officials have been empowered to make decisions on behalf of the citizens who elected them to office and who are funding their activities. In the same way, the stockholders of a corporation cannot disrupt the activities of its officers and managers whom they have empowered to make decisions on their behalf.

I'm also confused why you can't have a public entity seeking property that is funded by voluntary donation? Just as a non-profit organization routinely acquires property for its own use through private donations the government can very well do the same.

But the property that the government acquires by soliciting voluntary funding must be used according to the purposes for which it was solicited. The government does not have the right to use it in any way it wishes, as it would if it owned it outright.

- Bill

Post 45

Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 8:14pm

Interesting that somehow the North's utterly massive use of slave labor to fight the war - i.e., conscription (and if you thought the Vietnam era protests were something, you should've seen the ones against the War of Secession) is somehow morally superior to the South's use of slave labor for production...

At least the Southern slave owners, nasty as they were, had a vested interest in the well-being of their - quite expensive - slaves,* while the Union spilled the blood of hundreds of thousands of its slaves, willy nilly, in a pure power grab.

*A slave in good health was priced in the kind of range that in today's economy would buy an expensive farm combine, or at least a top-of-the-line tractor.

Lincoln was in fact a proto-fascist. There is a direct intellectual line from the Utopian socialists who took over Harvard in the 1920's to the Comptian "State as God" crew who were rising intellectual stars by Lincoln's time. Check out Joel Spring's work at Harvard documenting the actual, for-real century-long conspiracy to create a compulsory child indoctrination system to induce the emergence of the "New Socialist Man."

It was the "Civil War" that ushered in compulsory state education in the North, as the mothers were in the factories and the fathers were enslaved in the Union armed forces. And the people who set up the schools and trained the new teachers were the very proto-fascists who had been fruitlessly plotting to bring about that end for four decades.

Teresa wrote: "Anyway, the point is blanket laws, Federal Laws, laws for which there is no escaping, no matter where you live. States have no power anymore."

How I wish that states had no power... California is a state unto itself, tieing Texas for having the highest percentage of people in prison in the U.S., which means that if they were countries, they would be number one and number two worldwide for the highest percentage of the general population in prison.

However, the feds do tend to be nastier, not particularly caring how the locals might react. I lost $8,000 a few years back when the feds put Anthony L. Hargis & Co. out of business, Hargis himself in prison - with no criminal charges - for six months, and systematically looted every penny of the investors and account holders funds, without ever proving a single crime in court - simply pure allegation.

BTW, I saw an interview in passing while eating at MacDonald's - the only time I watch any TV - with various modern secessionists. There were progressive left types who wanted to secede, conservative Bible pounders, and libertarians - probably more. Northern California has been wanting to secede from Southern California for quite some time.

Post 46

Friday, November 2, 2007 - 3:07am

How I wish that states had no power... California is a state unto itself, tieing Texas for having the highest percentage of people in prison in the U.S., which means that if they were countries, they would be number one and number two worldwide for the highest percentage of the general population in prison.

Federal, or state prisons, Phil? Seeing as how CA and TX are drug traffic states, and all state drug laws are Federal Laws (States can be more strict, they just can't be more lax in implementation) this doesn't surprize me at all.

Drew Carey has a new Reason video out about this very issue. Medical cannabis was legalized in CA a decade ago, yet the Feds refuse to allow that state to implement it's own laws. States have no power to secede against Federal law, and Federal law rules all.

Post 47

Friday, November 2, 2007 - 7:16am

I wrote (41):

Well, what if the property is transferred unconditionally to the government? Isn't the government the new owner?

You replied (44):

Of course, but the property isn't transferred unconditionally; it's transferred subject to certain conditions.

John A. wrote (42):

I'm also confused why you can't have a public entity seeking property that is funded by voluntary donation? Just as a non-profit organization routinely acquires property for its own use through private donations the government can very well do the same.

You replied (44):

But the property that the government acquires by soliciting voluntary funding must be used according to the purposes for which it was solicited. The government does not have the right to use it in any way it wishes, as it would if it owned it outright.

Bill, why do you modify our questions? I say "transferred unconditionally"; you say "isn't transferred unconditionally." John did not say anything about the government soliciting, but your reply does. John included no conditions on use after transfer; yet you do. A voluntary contribution may have conditions, but it isn't necessary. Also, the donor could put conditions on for a limited time period, after which there are none.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 11/02, 7:38am)

Post 48

Friday, November 2, 2007 - 9:05am

Right Merlin, conditions in a transaction are not just set in stone by the seller, the buyer as well can propose conditions. It is the mutual agreement to those conditions in a contract that makes them valid. The entity soliciting for property can say "look we want to acquire some property, we're looking for this price and these conditions, any takers?"

But Bill, I would agree government officials should not own government property in the sense you describe as taking a Bahamas vacation. Government property should, not just should but they are now, used only for a government function. I've never heard of a Congressman selling off part of the Capital building or the seat he sits on to someone else? Has a President tried to take with him the oval office desk after he finishes his term? So I always thought public property serves to distinguish from "private property" in this way; public property is property used for government function, and nothing more meant by that. So I don't understand where the disagreement is really other than it seems you think I'm using a misnomer?

Post 49

Friday, November 2, 2007 - 2:50pm

I have a question for Bill -

What about the long tradition of giving property away to municipalities and states? Henry Ford donated massive tracts to the state of Michigan. Highland Recreation Area in Highland Michigan was a Ford estate, now it's a state park. That's what he wanted. Rich folks, and not so rich folks, still do this. They leave stuff for "The People."

What are "The People" supposed to do? Refuse the donation? Sell it off? Would there even be a concept like "The People" to leave property to? "I leave my 10 acre estate in Michigan to the good people of Michigan." Would that even be possible under Rand's Capitalism?

Post 50

Friday, November 2, 2007 - 3:38pm

Some interesting discussion.

I was thinking about what would happen if I donated a new building to a company. Say I did it unconditionally. It's theirs. Does that give the CEO the right to sell it and cash in the money himself? No. Not because I still have ownership, of course. It's because the ownership is transferred to the stock holders. If the management took their property and used it for his own personal purposes, he'd be violating their rights. So even an unconditional transfer doesn't open up any old possibility.

What about the stock holders? They own it now, right? Does that mean any particular stock holder can sell it off, or use it for personal uses, or even destroy it? No. Nor does he have the right to destroy or use some fraction of it. It becomes "joint property", which is radically different from personal property. The owners, through their appointed management, only has limited use rights. They can use it in certain ways. The only other option is to sell it, and distribute the money to the shareholders (or keep the money for company uses). Same thing is true for joint ownership of a house. You can't decide unilaterally to burn it down, tear it down, or whatever else. And when a company goes under, all property is sold off and distributed to the shareholders. During the life of the company, the use of that property is limited to the function of that company.

How about a transfer to the government? One big difference is that there isn't share-holders. The government can't sell the property and distribute it to the shareholders. Unless you think the citizens are the equivalent. Then even an unconditional transfer would work the same way. It's not really "owned" by the government, which is simply a caretaker for it, and has limited use rights accordingly.

If you don't think there is a share-holder equivalent, then the "owner" would be the one who gave the government the property, and it would simply be some kind of lease.

Also note that giving property to a company is different from giving property to all of the people that work for a company. In the former, it's a gift to the stockholders. In the second, it's a gift to a bunch of individuals, who just happen to work at the same place. The same is true of a gift to the government. You aren't giving it to the employees of the government. You could, but then you can't describe it as giving it to the government.

Post 51

Saturday, November 3, 2007 - 10:04am

Merlin,

I was thinking that you couldn't transfer it to the government unconditionally, because the government couldn't use the property for whatever it wanted, but would have to use it for legitimate government functions. But I now see that that has nothing to do with the donor. It has to do with the the conditions under which the government itself is required to disburse its revenue and assets. Does that mean that once a person has voluntarily transferred his property to the government, the government owns it? I think it does, but the "ownership" is of a very qualified sort, since the government may use and dispose of the property only within very strict limits.

Joe may disagree with this, but to say that the donor still owns it and is simply leasing it to the government would imply some kind of lease expiration, which in this case, doesn't exist. So, I would say that Merlin has a point and that I stand corrected. (Joe, If you still disagree, I'd appreciate any additional comments that you might have. I thought your previous post made some good points, notwithstanding my revised view of the matter.)

John,

I also think that you are correct in that it does make sense to talk of the government as owning property, insofar as it has the right to dispose of it within the purview of its legitimate discretion.

This would also be my answer to Teresa. If Henry Ford made an unconditional donation of land to the State of Michigan, the the State of Michigan would own it outright, and could use it for legitimate government functions. Under laissez-faire, however, these would not include the operation of state parks, as all parks would be privately owned.

So, contrary to my original claim, I now see that it does make sense to talk of the government as "owning" property, not as individuals, of course, but as an institution operating under a strict set of constitutional guidelines.

So, what then do we make of Rand's statement that, under laissez-faire capitalism, all property is privately owned? I had originally argued that since, according to her, the producer has the right to the product of his effort, all property is privately owned at its inception. Although that doesn't mean, as we have seen, that it must remain so, it is perhaps worth considering that Rand may have been talking about the primary right of ownership, which lies with the producer.

In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, under the chapter "Common Fallacies about Capitalism," Nathanial Branden writes as follows:

In considering the issue of inherited wealth, one must begin by recognizing that the crucial right involved is not that of the heir but of the original producer of the wealth. The right of property is the right of use and disposal; just as the man who produces wealth has the right to use it and dispose of it in his lifetime, so he has the right to choose who shall be its recipient after his death. No one else is entitled to make that choice. It is irrelevant, therefore, in this context, to consider the worthiness or unworthiness of any particular heir; his is not the basic right at stake; when people denounce inherited wealth, it is the right of the producer that they are in fact attacking.

It has been argued that since the heir did not work to produce the wealth, he has no inherent right to it; that is true: the heir's is a derived right; the only primary right is the producer's. But if the future heir has no moral claim to the wealth, except by the producer's choice, neither has anyone else -- certainly not the government or "the public." (p. 85, HB., 92, PB)

Perhaps, when she said that under capitalism, all property is privately owned, Rand was referring to primary ownership -- to the primary right of the producer. Clearly, under an Objectivist view of limited government, the state would own the property that private citizens had transferred to it, but its right to the property would be a derived right, as the primary right would lie with the producer.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 11/03, 10:07am)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 11/03, 2:18pm)

Post 52

Saturday, November 3, 2007 - 4:38pm

Look gift horses in the mouth.

Property is not some absolute relationship between you and some set of atoms. If you were the only person in existence, or isolated on some desert island, "property" would be meaningless. Property rights, starting with your mind and body, are ethical/moral prohibitions against someone else interfering with your legitimate use of the "property."

You don't own a conic section to the center of the earth, just because you hold a title to a parcel of land. If you did, then you could in theory remove your conic section, and too bad that as a result your neighbors got flooded with molten magma. What you own is a bundle of rights which you acquired from the public, as your exclusive use of the land reflects a prohibition from using the land for their own purposes.

When you do own a piece of land or other property, you are also responsible for what goes on on that land or with that property. That's why, in a truly free society, you would still be buying insurance or posting an equivalent bond for things like fires or toxic releases, etc. from that property. Thus, if someone hands you a deed to a mountain, first check with the local geologists to ensure that it isn't likely to go volcanic soon, or slide into the ocean, causing a massive tsunami, etc., for which, YOU, as owner would likely be liable.

Oh, Teresa - I actually saw part of an interview and special report with Drew - at MacDonalds. He's now on the Board of Directors or some such thing with the REASON Foundation, and the cannabis laws are not his only concern, by any means. Go Cleveland! Here's what is actually happening here in California:

California passed the Medical Cannabis proposition about a decade ago, allowing any doctor to prescribe cannabis legally. The law required the various sub-state entities - munifipalities, counties, whatever - to implement some kind of carding or other ID system for those who had a prescription, so that the locals would theoretically leave them alone.

Very few such systems are in place, despite the state mandate, and numerous cities or counties have passed ordinances that specifically ban or impose impossible burdens upon medical cannabis dispensories, citing the conflict with federal law as their excuse. At the same time, while the feds do occasionally bust such establishments, they typically only bust individuals who are in the business of growing the cannabis for the medical distribution, or who go public. I.e., it's "don't ask, don't tell."

Very rarely do state or local cops bust individuals who carry evidence of a medical prescription, and then they typically have some other alleged reason, such as driving under the influence, as their reason/excuse. So the feds do what they want, but without any local or state support except in the breach, as in the ordinances preventing dispensories or cultivation. One thing the origianl proposition left hanging was where one was supposed to get the cannabis.

I keep thinking that when I have the time (ROFW) I should go to one of the recognized pot doctors, as I have a number of injuries to various joints and muscles that I could probably deal with more effectively stoned. My experience in the '60's in college was that pot enabled me to focus down to the sensory level and take direct mental control over processes that normally would be inaccessible due to the natural filters one builds into ones neurostructures in the process of maturation.
I specifially taught myself a number of major physical skills in a matter of minutes while stoned that I would have had to spend years to learn otherwise, and if the drug still works on a 59-year-old brain, then I should be able to do the same with my knee injuries and other physical problems, analyzing exactly how I should be moving to minimize stress, pain and further damage.

Post 53

Saturday, November 3, 2007 - 5:23pm

Hi Bill,

I don't have much of an opinion on this topic. I was just adding some thoughts to the conversation. For instance, I think it's an interesting question who the proceeds of the sale of that property would go to. For a company, it would either be used by the company directly, or go to the stockholders. For a government? Possibly the same thing, if you think distributing the proceeds to the taxpayer. If you don't, then would it go to the original gift-giver? If the government didn't need the property anymore, for instance if they had enough to do their job and the rest sat idle. If you think the proceeds would go to the taxpayers, then it's really a gift to the taxpayers.

Another question is whether "public property" is the same as joint property. In the example of a gift to a corporation, the private property is transferred to the stockholders who then own is as a form of joint property. Is that all public property is supposed to be? Or is there some other idea behind it? Certainly some people think that if it's public property, they are entitled to use it or profit from it in some way. Is public property merely joint property?

I simplified things a little too much in my previous post when I said that the co-owners of joint property could simply sell it. What happens if there is a disagreement there too? I want to sell it now for X dollars. You want to sell it in two months for Y dollars. Unless things are clearly defined ahead of time (like a stockholder vote), it means there must be someone else who comes in and makes the decision. That's typically the courts. And if the courts have final say on the matter, meaning they are the final deciders of how the property can be used, what does that say about ownership?

Also, a lease might not be the best way to describe a donation. It's more of transferring guardianship for a limited use. If Andrew Carnegie donates a public library to a city, the city is taking on the job of maintaining it and making it available to the public. If the city decides they'd rather use it as a prison, they would be violating the right of the original giver. While they can maintain that library indefinitely without interference from the owners of the Carnegie estate, they can't close it down without returning the property.

Like I said, I don't really have a position here. I'm not sure what people even mean by public property.

Post 54

Monday, November 5, 2007 - 9:17am