I'll go point by point and match you extreme abuse for extreme abuse. And probably not actually answer the question, because honestly I don't know enough. But this is my general thinking as of 31 August 2002, and it is subject to change through debate or coersion.
Lets say person A has the money and desire to purchase farm equipment and improve the yield of a plot of farmland. Since person A doesn't actually own the land, they have no justifiable claim to stop anyone who wants from coming and taking his increased yeild. Because of that Person A sees no point to increasing the yeild. The end result: The land isn't as improved as it could be, Person A is unhappy because he couldn't do what he wanted, and everyone else is ticked because they have to pay more for food (lower supply=high price ya know). What would you propose to rectify this situation?
counter-example: Lets say person A owns a plot of farmland. But person A is not utilising the farmland with advanced techniques and equipment, and the surrounding community would like lower food prices and better yield. But, since person A owns the land, there is nothing to be done.
rectify: All Person A has to do is convince the other parties that his plan is the best, and the land will be developed. If he can't convince the other parties that his plan is the best, well then, perhaps the people don't value low food prices as much as Person A thought.
Another case: A bunch of white people settle in middle of Kansas. A black person comes along and builds a house. That's fine becuase no one owns the land he's building it on. All the white people get together and claim they liked the land the way it was, majority rules, the black has to tear down his house, and incidently there's no where else the white folks think the black man should build at. Without property ownership how can this be prevented?
counter-example: A bunch of white people settle in the middle of Kansas. A black person comes along and wants to build a house. But it's too bad, because all the white people own the land already, and refuse to sell any to the black man.
prevention: There are already laws against discrimination on the basis of race. If the black man you speak of wishes to pursue the matter, he will find many friends in the ACLU and other organisations.
All land around has been torn up for parking decks, except one plot that has an apple tree in it. One winter it the people decide to chop down the tree and burn it for warmth. Without property rights how do you prevent citizens from taking a shortsighted approach to things, as they often do?
counter-example: All land aroudn has been torn up for parking decks, except one plot that has an apple tree in it. One winter, the owner of the tree decides to chop it down and burn it for warmth. Without communal rights to preserve the last apple tree, how do you prevent private owners from taking a shortsighted approach to things, as they often do?
prevention: If the people needed firewood that badly, maybe the apple tree's time had come. If the majority of the communal land owners decide the tree is best used as firewood, that's the way it will be. It is up to those people who are not shortsighted (this would be people like you!) to convince them otherwise.
A bunch of mosquitos are bringing malaria to an area. There's a reasonably good chance that draining swamp land will destroy mosquitto breeding grounds and make malaria much more rare. Unfortunately 51% of the people like the 'wetlands'. How do you enforce public health concerns with land?
counter-example: A bunch of mosquitos are bringing malaria to an area. There's a reasonably good chance that draining swamp land will destroy mosquito breeding grounds and make malaria much mroe rare. Unfortunately the owner of the land likes his 'wetlands'. How do you enforce public health concerns with land?
enforcement: It is up to the people who want to drain the wetlands to stop malaria to convince the people that this is the best idea. If they can't convince them that the value of reduced malaria is greater than the value of preserved wetlands, then the people have chosen to value preserved wetlands over reduced malaria, and that's the way it will be.
Similiarly to the above, the citizens of NYC decide that ANWAR is the perfect place to dump their trash. Since the citizens of NYC outnumber the citizens of Alaska, what's to prevent a large population from dumping waste wherever they want?
counter-example: Similarly to the above, the citizens of NYC decide that ANWAR is the perfect place to dump their trash. Since a prominent citizen of NYC owns a large portion of ANWAR, what's to prevent the people of Alaska from having waste dumped on them?
prevention: The people of NYC have no communal land rights over ANWAR, because they do not live there. The people living in the affected area decide if the amount of money NYC is willing to pay for dumping is worth the nastiness of having the trash there as well. If there is no one living in the area (such as ANWAR) then I see no reason to stop the trash dumping. If someone wants to live there and fight for its preservation, have a nice time.
Everyone agrees that a military base is problems, so one never gets built anywhere because the majority always oppose it. A week later Canada invades, takes over all of America because there's no defenses anymore, and enforces it's rules of property ownership. How do you stop this?
counter-example: Everyone agrees that a military base is problems, so one never gets built anywhere because land owners won't sell the land for building. A week later Canada invades, takes over all of America because there's no defenses anymore [...] How do you stop this?
stopping it: If the majority of the people cannot be convinced of the value of military protection, then they shouldn't be surprised when they are overrun. Convince them that they need military protection, and they will welcome it. If you can't convince them they need military protection, the chances are, Canada is not about to invade.
All your points are very valid and good questions.
However, for nearly every extreme you can present, there is another example for the extremes of land ownership.
Remember, the feudal system was based on land ownership, but that didn't stop the majority of people from starving, dying, and suffering through life, to benefit the few lords.
your straw man is on fire...
[ Parent ]