According to terminology in classical economics, land is a nature-given, original factor of production. When it is combined with labor (the other original factor of production) and the same material is rearranged into an improved, useful form, either a capital good or a consumers' is produced. In other words, labor mixed with land produces capital goods and consumers' goods.
In Lockean property theory, a man owns property when he mixes his labor with land, thereby improving it (making it more useful). But then, according to the above classical economics terminology, the land would not be land anymore.
It seems then, if one were to use both classical economics and Lockean terminology (and adhere to the Lockean view of property rights), one must say that land cannot be owned, and that only capital goods and consumer's goods (and perhaps one's own labor, in a manner of speaking) can be owned.
And of course this in inconsistent with the general practice of people who adhere to both traditions, who very frequently speak of land-owning.
Thoughts?
Lilburne: According to terminology in classical economics, land is a nature-given, original factor of production. When it is combined with labor (the other original factor of production) and the same material is rearranged into an improved, useful form, either a capital good or a consumers' is produced. In other words, labor mixed with land produces capital goods and consumers' goods. In Lockean property theory, a man owns property when he mixes his labor with land, thereby improving it (making it more useful). But then, according to the above classical economics terminology, the land would not be land anymore. It seems then, if one were to use both classical economics and Lockean terminology (and adhere to the Lockean view of property rights), one must say that land cannot be owned, and that only capital goods and consumer's goods (and perhaps one's own labor, in a manner of speaking) can be owned. And of course this in inconsistent with the general practice of people who adhere to both traditions, who very frequently speak of land-owning. Thoughts?
Well, the land is transformed into a good. So, no, you can't own the land, but you can own the stuff previously known as land. That's how I would understand it. So, I think what is then referred to as land isn't really land, but is a euphemism for what was previously called land. For example, if build a house on a plot of land, and then sell the house and the land the house it built on, what I am really saying is that I am selling the garden, the driveway, the grass, the walkways, etc. that were previously known as land, plus the house.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
How much mixing of labor do you consider appropriate for land to be transformed into a capital or consumer good?
Could some vagabond come set up camp on a part of your land of which you claim ownership that has really quite apparently never been touched?
I've been saying that for years.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Le Master:Could some vagabond come set up camp on a part of your land of which you claim ownership that has really quite apparently never been touched?
Your question presupposes that land that has never been touched can be owned.