Land, Natural Resource, and Natural (Inalienable) Rights

Apr 10, 2014 1:27:46 GMT pjohns1873 said:

The sum total of what you have provided is this:  Barry Goldwater was a libertarian--not a social (or religious) conservative.  And that is little more than a truism.

For the record:  I am a bit of a social conservative; and, although I am somewhat reticent to speak badly of the deceased, let me just say that I was never a fan of the late Jerry Falwell; just as I am not a fan of Pat Robertson. 

But back to the central point:  I really do not believe that a libertarian is closer to a progressive than he is to conservatives (except, perhaps, on social issues). 

Oh, by the way:  Barack Obama also opposed the concept of "gay marriage" until very recently.  He now claims to have "evolved" on the issue; which is liberal-speak for having seen the light...

Barry Goldwater was NOT a libertarian. He was way too militaristic to be a libertarian and had absolutely no concerns with killing of millions of innocent people in foreign countries. His belief that he could win the Vietnam War by bombing North Vietnam back into the stone age was very anti-libertarian.

Barack Obama was always for equality for same-sex couples. Initially he believed that could be achieved through civil unions but when the overwhelming evidence was presented in the DOMA Section 3 case that a "civil union" would not provide equality then he embraced the fact that only "marriage" would ensure that equality. He never changed his belief that same-sex couples were entitled to equality.

The real issue is why, after the overwhelming evidence has been presented that only "marriage" will provide equality for same-sex couples, does the Republican Party oppose it? Obama always supported equality for gays and lesbians, just like Barry Goldwater, while the Republican Party opposes equality for gays and lesbians. The Republican Party today is opposed to equality for gays and lesbians while President Obama (and Barry Goldwater) always supported equality for gays and lesbians.  

I consider myself to be a pragmatic libertarian. I don't allow ideology to ignore reality. The ideology is the goal of course but we must address reality in striving to achieve the goal. I would classify my beliefs as being founded upon "classical liberalism" that was based upon the following definition:

 "Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets."

www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Classical_liberalism.html

I'm not an advocate of "neo-classical liberalism" though that demands "small government" as opposed to "limited government" that was embraced under classical liberalism. There is a difference between "small government" and "limited government" and that difference is significant. "Small government" can be ineffective in addressing the problems that government alone can address while "limited government" would be as large as required to address those problems that government alone can address.  

Case in point could be welfare assistance by government. Welfare assistance does nothing to eliminate the problem which is poverty but merely mitigates the effects of the poverty. My position is that government needs to act to eliminate poverty and I make proposals that address that such as my proposed revisions to the tax codes and responsible privatization of Social Security that builds personal and family wealth but oppose simply cutting welfare assistance that is currently necessary to mitigate the poverty that exists.

By way of analogy we have a boat with a leak and we can't stop bailing out the water while we work to patch the hole. A reduction in poverty leads to a reduction in the costs to mitigate the effects of the poverty just like working to fix the hole in the boat leads to reducing how much water we need to bail from the boat. The "Republican" position on government welfare assistance is "let's don't bail as much water from the boat" but that doesn't lead to fixing the hole in the boat which ultimately results in the boat sinking.

********************************

On this thread I'm addressing the fact that "ownership" of land and natural resources is always established based upon an initial "act of aggression" that violates the Inalienable Rights of other Persons. As such we cannot have an Inalienable Right of Property related to land and natural resources because an Inalienable Right cannot violate the Inalienable Rights of another person.  

At the same time I'm a pragmatic realist understanding that it is beneficial in many cases for me to voluntarily allow a person to use the land and/or harvest that natural resources. It makes sense to allow a person to cut down a tree, mill it into usable lumber, and then furnish that lumber to me so I can build a house. It makes sense to allow a person to farm the land to grow and harvest wheat so that it can be processed into bread that I can eat. It is also reasonable that the person harvesting the tree or farming the land should be able to live off their labor as they have a Right to what their labor produces.

That is why I argue that as a person, or society as a whole of combined persons, can authorize a person to harvest the tree or farm the land to provide lumber and bread to the people in society. We can volunarily limit our own Freedom to Exercised our Inalienable Rights by authorizing a person to cut down the tree or farm a parcel of land so long as that is mutually beneficial to both the person cutting down the tree or farming the land and those of us in society that use the lumber and eat the bread. We don't have "right" to sell the ownership of the land or natural resource but we do have the authority to limit our own Freedoms related to that tree or the piece of land.

But the key here is that it must be mutually beneficial where we're not screwing the "logger" or the "farmer" and they're not screwing us. Where neither is exploiting the other based upon unfair transactions. We also have to understand that the "authorization" is limited to the mutual benefit of both. Just because we allow the "logger" to cut down the tree to provide lumber doesn't give them the authority to "sell the land" that the tree is on to build a ski resort for example. As a society that ski resort maybe beneficial to us but that doesn't entitle the "logger" to profit from the greater value of the land as a ski resort as opposed to being a natural forest.

The authorization to use the land or harvest the natural resources can be granted by society but ownership cannot be granted because no one owns the land and/or natural resources and the "authorization" is always limited based upon a mutually beneficial relationship.

Apr 11, 2014 1:10:47 GMT pjohns1873 said:

It would have probably been quite a revelation to Barry Goldwater (if he were alive today) that he was "NOT a libertarian." (Caps in original) In fact, Wikipedia even notes that he "had a substantial impact on the libertarian movement"; and this, irrespective of his hardline foreign-policy views.

Your beliefs as concerning land ownership strike me as being purely theoretical.  As a practical matter, how would you imagine going about stripping current property owners of their property rights (including the right to sell the land, and not just the house upon it)? 

There is no denying that Barry Goldwater influenced the Libertarian political movement of the 1970's just as Thomas Jefferson was also highly influential but that did not make them Libertarians of today. Goldwater was a foreign military interventionist and Jefferson was a slave holder neither of which modern libertarianism endorse. Goldwater was a fiscal conservative and social liberal which are two attributes of libertarianism today while today's social-conservatives of the Republican Party are neither fiscal conservatives or social liberals. The Republican Party from the early 1960's is closer today to the current Democratic Party platform and agenda than it is to the current Republican Party platform and agenda. Remember that the Republicans in the 1960's genenally supported the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act and today they oppose both in their party platform, agenda and legislative actions. We should also remember the top personal income tax rate in the 1960's was 90% while today it's less than 1/2 of that at 39.6% and the Capital Gains tax, that is the tax that the super-wealthy typically pay, is less than 1/4th of that at 20% and few super-rich pay that 20%.

Yes, my proposition that we can't "own land and/or natural resources" is based upon the "theoretical" understanding of the Right of Property of the Person established by their labor and that a Right cannot exist when it conflicts with the Rights of another person. That does not invalidate it but instead supports the proposition.

Obviously to act upon a different understanding where a person doesn't "own the land" but instead has the "authority to use the land" introduces pragmatic problems not all of which can easily be addressed. We would obviously have to start with the "here and now" and move forward from that point in time. For the vast majority of Americans there would be virtually no change whatsoever. Residential homes and apartments are necessities and so the use of the land for them is accepted. Land for commercial enterprises is obviously necessary. The operations of mines or logging of the forests or land used for farming and raising cattle is also arguably necessary. The use of the land in a responsible manner, which were already addressing under the laws, becomes a default requirement that would prohibit irresponsible pollution of the land or irresponsible actions that create an unnecessary adverse impact on nature but we're already addressing that more and more under our current laws.

There would be exceptions of course. For example as I recall from the 1970's the Hurst family had a hunting lodge in California on 46,000 acres of land. There is obviously no rational reason why someone would require 46,000 acres for a vacation hunting lodge. That land is not being used for any reason that would benefit society and it is illogical for anyone to have an exclusive grant of authority related to it. We'd probably come up with some sort of proposition like "Use it or Lose it" when it comes to land.

I will freely admit that the proposition presents some serious difficulties but that doesn't imply they are insurmountable.

For example, if the Hurst family still owns the 46,000 acres for their hunting lodge then the government could compensate them for the loss by refunding the original purchase price of the land that they would lose. Remember that under my proposition they didn't have a Right to Own it in the first place so they don't have a legitimate claim to it to begin with so even a refund of the original purchase prices is more of a compromise recognizing that the government did collect money for the land and is obligated to refund what was collected from the "person" (or their heirs) that made the payment.         

But I don't have all of the answers on how the "transition" would be pragmatically addressed. I merely point to the fact that our current understanding is wrong because no arguments can be presented that would allow for the literal ownership of the land or natural resources. Our understanding of "land ownership" was based upon the Divine Right of Kings and was never based upon the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" and, in a very real sense, it would equate to the abolition of slavery in the United States that was based upon the Divine Right of Kings.

We managed to deal with the abolition of slavery and we could also deal with the change of "ownership of land" to "authority to use land" that wouldn't be nearly as dramatic as the abolition of slavery.    

Apr 12, 2014 0:40:33 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Yes, modern libertarians and modern liberals share left-leaning views as concerning both social issues, generally (including abortion rights and gay marriage) and foreign policy (both tend to be somewhat weak in this sense, as I see it). But there the similarities end.

And you have glossed over my question as concerning the ownership of land--which you reject--with the (rather empty) platitude that the transition you propose "wouldn't be nearly as dramatic as the abolition of slavery."  So I shall repeat the question:  If a man has paid for his house AND the land on which it is built, when he attempts to sell it--and can sell ONLY the house, but not the land--how is that fair?  And how would it work?   

Barry Goldwater opposed unfair income taxation but today's Republicans embrace it. As I noted he was at his political apex when income taxes on the wealthy were at 90% and today's Republicans avocate cutting the tax rate on super-wealthy investors from a cap of 20% which is 1/2 the top rate for a person that actually "works for a living" in the United States. He also believed in a balanced budget that today's Republicans only give lip-service to. I have yet to hear any Republican put forward the proposition that we need to collect enough in tax revenues to fund the authorized expenditures of Congress. Republicans are "anti-tax" and not "pro-balanced budget" today.

Let me provide a direct answer to "selling one's home" and then provide an argument to address our current situation.

The person sells the "House" that they own plus their "authorization to use the land upon which it sits" (with pragmatic limitations).

Regardless of how much a person pays for "property acquired by an act of aggression" (e.g. purchasing a stolen car) do they have any "property rights" related to it? The answer is unequivocally no.

We can see examples of this related to property stolen by the Nazis from the Jews in Europe where the Jews are filing lawsuits to regain ownership of works of art, gold that was taken, or by receiving compensation for other "property" assets. It is something that not only we embrace under our laws but is, in fact, fundamental under the "common law" of civilized societies.

There are, of course, pragmatic problems created over time related to this. For example all of the "private property" in the Black Hills was stolen from the Sioux in the 19th Century. Federal Courts have confirmed that the land belonged to the Sioux Nation and that the "white settlers" that invaded and took possession of land were stealing the land. The "legal" solution is simple. Evict all of the private owners of land in the Black Hills but the curent owners, and the ones before them, "purchased the land" in good faith with the blessing of government. It would be a really raw deal for them because the government for generations sanctioned the theft of the land from the Sioux Nation. Today how to pragmatically address this historical theft of land is still working it's way through the federal courts.

Ultimately about 90% of the People would be completely unaffected by addressing land as "authorized use" as opposed to "property of the person" because effectively there is no fundamental difference in practice. There would be exceptions of course. As I mentioned there is no logical rationalization for the "authorization of use" of 46,000 acres for a hunting cabin. An acre maybe, perhaps even 5 acres if the land is actually being used, but 46,000 acres makes no sense at all.

Apr 13, 2014 0:55:11 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Well, I suppose that is a start. But do you really believe that the seller might be able to be paid as much for the "authorized use" of the land--not to produce anything on it for society's collective benefit, but merely to act as a plot of land in suburbia--as he would receive for its actual sale?

And I agree with your assessment of the complicated nature of the land taken from the Sioux in the nineteenth century: It would, indeed, amount to a "raw deal" for the current landowners in the Black Hills if the US government were to confiscate their land, since the landowners' actions were consummated "in good faith with the blessing of government."

In most other cases, however, I do not believe that the ownership of private property is the end result of an "act of aggression," as you have suggested. 

I'll be the first one to admit that the historical understanding of land "ownership" as opposed to "authorization to use the land" introduces pragmatic problems that would need to be resolved but just because we "believed" something doesn't make it right. We "believed" the Earth was flat but it wasn't.

As for understanding that an act of aggression occurred all we have to do is go back in time until we reach the point that no one owned the land and someone claimed ownership of a parcel. The only way they managed to establish that claim was either by the threat or actual use of force against anyone that defied their claim of ownership. Mankind was nomatic in nature but at some point someone declared, "This is my land and I'll kill anyone that tries to take it away from me" and that is an act of aggression. Their "claim" denied others their Right of Liberty to access and use the land they claimed and we know that a Right of one person cannot violate the Rights of another Person. Both the nomad and the settler had an identical Right to "Use" the identical piece of land.

We can also approach this from the extreme opposite end. If people can "own the land" then hypothetically all of the land can theoretically be "owned" by one person where they can deny access to anyone else. Those that don't "own" land would have no place to even stand on the Earth. Only the "landowner" would have the Right of  Liberty while everyone else would be denied the Right of Liberty to walk on the land. The same is true with natural resources. One person could "own" all of the natural resources and everyone else would be subjected to death by denial of the natural resources to them.   

The flat Earth becomes a sphere and that changes our "beliefs" about land and natual resources.

Yes, there is a problem with "not used for intended purposes" when it comes to land so let me address that with an anecdotal story.

In the 1950's my dad was a partner in an Idaho gold claim. The assay of the ore showed it was worth mining but only with heavy equipment. My dad contacted 3M (when it really was Minn. Mining and Machinery) and based upon the assay report 3M offered to sublet the mining rights, pay a royality, and the sub-lease contained a "will produce" clause. The key was the "will produce" clause that prevented 3M from sub-leasing the mining rights and just sitting on them paying the partners nothing.

If the authority to use the land to build a house, for example, but the person doesn't build a house then the land is not being used for the purpose intended and the person with the "title to use the land for a specific purpose" is failing to meet the "will produce" clause of the "contract" related to the land. They are in breach of contract. 

On the opposite end let's say someone has the granted authority to "use the land for farming" and does so for many years. If later they decide to no longer farm the land then they are not meeting the conditions of the "contract" that allowed them to use the land. They are in breach of contract.

Basically it's a matter of contract law. The person and society establish a "contract" that authorizes the exclusive use of the land for a specific purpose.

It comes down to a "use it or lose it" authorization. At the point that the conditions of the "contract" are not being met then the common law of "adverse possession" would come into play. Another person that was willing to use the land for the purpose intended would have the legal right (not inalienable right) under the common law to take possession of the land and use it for the authorized purpose.

Obviously reasonable considerations would be addressed under the "use it or lose it" conditions of the contract.

Of course this leads to "what is the authorized use" which would probably be addressed under "zoning" laws similar to what we currently have. There could be differences but "zoning" laws seem the be the way we'd address society granting authority related to the "Use of the Land" because that's basically what they do today.

Hope you're following all of this because I know it introduces concepts that must be understood that go against what we've traditionally believed. As noted though, traditional beliefs can be wrong and I come from the school of "question everything" because that's the only way we ultimately find the "truths" that we seek. Trust me, I don't know of anyone else that has put forward this argument that questions our traditional beliefs related to land and natural resources. Not meaning to be egotistical but you might be discussing an issue with the "John Locke" of the 21st Century. The question is whether you can follow my logic but to do that you would have to discard preconceptions and work on the logic yourself. Can you convince yourself that I'm correct because only you can really change your own mind. I can give your explanations but you have to carry those forward with your own critical thinking skills. I happen to believe you're quite capable of doing that. Then we'd be the only two people I know of that believed the arguments were compelling.  

Apr 13, 2014 23:48:25 GMT pjohns1873 said:

First, let me thank you for your kind words.

Nonetheless, I disagree with your core position as regarding the need to "go back" to the very beginning, in order to establish a seminal injustice. This seems very similar, in fact, to the socialist conclusion that wealth (and just about everything else, for that matter) must be redistributed in order to compensate for past sins, that have resulted in current inequalities. 

And as to your reasoning as concerning contract law:  What sort of contract might be designed for someone who has no desire, whatsoever, to do anything with the land, other than to mow the lawn weekly (as is typically the case in suburbia)?    

When an injustice occurs that violates the Rights of the Person is irrelevant. What we know is that an Inalienable Right cannot violate the Rights of another Person. There cannot exist any Right where a conflict occurs with someone else's Rights. If the initial act violated the Inalienable Rights of another person then there is no Inalienable Right being established and it doesn't matter when that occurred. My point is that there could never be an Inalienable Right of Property related to land or natural resources because the act of "claiming" ownership is an act of aggression that violates the Inalienable Rights of other Persons. It doesn't matter when that first claim was made.

No, I'm not claiming that there needs to be a "redistribution" but instead I'm claiming that there isn't an Inalienable Right of Property related to land and natural resources because such a claim is based upon an act of aggression that violated the Rights of Other Persons. For example I mentioned that it made no rational sense for the Hurst family to "own" 46,000 (or 48,000?) acres for a hunting lodge. They could "lose" their "title" to the unused portion of the 46,000 acres but no one would be granted the "title" to that land. There wouldn't be a "redistribution" of the land at all as no one would be granted title to the land. It would just become "nature" which is what it has always been with and nothing else. That is not "redistribution" which reflects taking something from someone and giving it to someone else.  

At the same time I acknowledge that there are pragmatic reasons for granting a person specific authority related to the "use of the land" that is based upon a voluntary agreement by those in society (i.e. all persons) and the individual under a social contract. Because the action is voluntary there isn't a violation of the Inalienable Rights of the Person. If I voluntarily agree to not "walk across" a piece of land so that a person can farm that land then my Right of Liberty is not being violated.

An interesting question about someone that just wants to mow a piece of land un suburbia. Are we assumng that the person is merely being altruistic in their actions? I don't see why a contract allowing the person to exclusively mow the lawn couldn't be drafted and approved. It would be a benefit to society to not have a piece of land in suburbia become overgrown with weeds that might represent a fire hazard to adjacent properties or that would be unsightly. Of course if the person offering to do this has an ulterior motive (e.g. they want to have the exclusive authority of the land so they can profit from it in the future) then you're being deceiptful in your question. What if it's a "residential" lot and we need a house built on it to fulfill it's purpose but the person with the contract refuses to build to provide the residential home we need? Then that person is working against the "best interests" of society because that land needs to be used for residential housing.

This is a rather specific question and there can be many considerations to it. Perhaps it is beneficial to society to create a contract with the person to "mow the lawn" on future residential property. The person is providing a service to society in "mowing the lawn" and they're expending their labor in doing so. They are entitled to fair compensation (expenditures plus reasonable profit) for their labor when the need arises for the land to be used for the actual construction of a residential building (home or apartment complex). 

Of course, as I mentioned, there are certainly pragmatic challenges when we address the "use of the land" as opposed to the "ownership of the land" and I haven't looked at or considered all of the ramifications of this different approach based upon an understanding of the Inalienable Rights of the Person. The key to the question being asked is the fact that a "contract" could be created.  All it takes is rethinking the situation to ensure that there is a mutually beneficial relationship established between "society" (all persons) and the individual related to the use of the land.        

Apr 14, 2014 20:22:29 GMT pjohns1873 said:

No, I am certainly not suggesting that the person who wishes to live on a parcel of land in suburbia is motivated by "altruistic" intentions. Nor am I suggesting its opposite--i.e. that their are "ulterior" motives involved. He simply prefers to live in the suburbs; and he is perfectly willing to mow his lawn every week (except in the winter, of course), as the price for living there.

If he has already paid for the land (in addition to the house that sits on it), but can subsequently sell only the house--not the land itself, on which it sits, and that surrounds it--he would certainly seem to be operating at a loss. 

Oh, and I realize that you would not give the property to someone else (i.e. redistribute it).  My allusion to the redistributionists was merely this:  Those on the left (who are redistributionists) wish to trace our current inequities all the way back to the beginning, and thus uproot them.  I think you are taking a similar approach--even if redistribution is not your own goal.   

You've changed the criteria. The original issue was to have land that is unused except for the fact that someone was willing to mow it. Now it's become a residency where the person is living and mowing the lawn. Obviously there is a pragmatic reason why the person needs to have exclusive use of the land that the home sits on just like Native-Americans needed to use the land their teepee sat on even though they never "owned" that land.

There are also pragmatic reasons for using land around the house. For example I have a shop and my septic drainfield in my backyard and there is an "easement" on my property to create separation between my lot and the parcels next to me. I have a small front yard as well so that my house isn't sitting directly on the street. This is all reasonable and acceptable.  A person that wanted to grow food in a garden would arguably have a reason for more land to live on. All of this is reasonable and acceptable.

A person doesn't have to "own land" to create a transferrable asset. A "lease in perpetuity" established by a single payment that is transferrable is a financial asset. The difference is, at least from an objective sense, is that a lease is more likely to contain conditions for the lease. It can include an "intended purpose" clause and I'll provide an example.

The US and Cuba have a treaty agreement that established a "lease in perpetuity" of Guantanamo Bay by the United States. The US sends a payment every year to Cuba to pay for that lease (and Cuba rejects the payment). Cuba still "owns" Guantanamo Bay but the US has the "contractual rights" to use that land but only for the reason granted by the lease agreement. According to the "lease" the United States can only use Guantanamo Bay for a "naval refueling station" and the US is currently in violation of that lease by using Guantanamo Bay as a prison facility. In theory Cuba could file a lawsuit against the US in the International Court for "breach of contract" and nullify the lease forcing the US from Guantanamo Bay. Unfortunately for Cuba the US is permanent member of the UN Security Council with "veto power" that can block any litigation against it in the International Court.

While this reflects an international "lease" (that isn't transferrable) the same principle can be applied to the 'use of the land' in the United States. A simple "transferrable lease" with a single payment to establish the lease and the conditions for 'use of the land" creates a financial asset for the holder of the lease. 

I don't see why there is a concern because the transferrable "lease in perpetuity" that establishes the reason for the lease (e.g. property to be used for a single family home) addresses the differences between "owning the land" and being "authorized to use the land" and both are transferrable financial assets.

Apr 16, 2014 0:52:59 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I certainly never intended to alter the criteria. It was my intent, form the beginning, to discuss the person who wishes to live on a parcel of land in suburbia (containing, of course, a house). But if I was insufficiently clear on this point, I apologize.

It has long been my understanding that Guantanamo Bay is a part of America--not a part of Cuba, despite its geography--but I will readily admit that I am no expert on this matter.

Returning, for a moment, to the matter of the property in suburbia:  Do you believe that a lease "in perpetuity" could be for the same amount of money as an outright sale of the property?  And how might one be authorized to lease that which one does not actually own (by your reasoning), anyway?

The "criteria" has been clarified and misunderstandings are common so no biggie.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban%E2%80%93American_Treaty

As noted it is a lease, not ownership and that land is still a part of Cuba, and the actual treaty specifies it can only be used for "exclusively for coaling" purposes but the US no longer uses coal to fuel our naval vessels and effectively the "purpose" of the lease is no longer valid. The US retains Guantánamo Bay for political purposes that have nothing to do with the conditions of the lease agreement. As I noted if Cuba could file a lawsuit based upon the violation of the lease agreement by the US (i.e. not using Guantánamo Bay for the purposes of "coaling" of ships) an unbiased court would logically nullify the lease.

********************************

Yes, a "lease in perpetuity" can be worth the same amount as "title" to the land so long as the land is being used for the purpose intended. The value of an existing home, farmland, commercial building, ect. that is being used for the purpose intended would basically be worth the same amount.

Now for my long-winded addressing of the question:

On the flip side land values established by real estate speculation not established by the purpose intended woud be subject to loss, in part or in whole, of all financial value because the "lease in perpetuity" could be nullified or enforced by a court of law. That would drive down the "value of the land" based upon land speculation so the question is whether that's good or not. It could reduce the costs to a person seeking to live in a "home in suburbia' because the value of the land would not be artificially inflated by real estate speculators. So is being able to purchase a new home for less a good or a bad thing for Americans?

Obviously under the "social contract" the government would be responsible for establishing the "lease in perpetuity" of unused lands. The government wouldn't own the land but instead would have adminstrative authority over it based upon the "social contract" created by the People. In creating the "lease in perpetuity" the government would specify the purpose for the use of the land and the "individual" that becomes a party to the lease would agree to use the land for that purpose. They would be given a reasonable amount of time to put the land to the use intended but if they don't fulfill their responsibilities under the "terms of the lease" then they would lose the "authority to use the land" based upon the terms of the lease. Excluding the adminstrative costs related to the creation of the lease there would be no "charges" related to the lease. Basically the land would "cost nothing" except to cover the expenses related to the lease.

The "new value" of the land based upon a "lease in perpetuity" would be tied to it's "authorized usage" and the only "person" that would lose would be real estate speculators that own unused land that is currently serving no purpose whatsoever. Everyone that actually uses land for the purposes intended would profit from the loss to the real estate speculators that are merely driving up the costs of land that isn't being used at all. It's a trade off where the average person that actually uses the land for a purpose is better off financially at the expense of a the few wealthy investors that are artificially driving up the costs of land for personal profit.

A person could actually acquire a vacant lot of land in town for the "costs of the adminstrative fees" to build a store or manufacturing building, where they can afford to build the structure but not "afford the land" to build it on for example. Often times today the "cost of the land" based upon real estate speculation by wealthy "land owners" is far more than the cost of the structure on it making it cost prohibitive for an person the start a business so the business doesn't exist. Have you ever considered that? How much is our economy losing today because the entrepreneur cannot afford to fill the bank account of a wealthy real estate speculator? How many new homes aren't being built because of the additional costs of land imposed by real estate speculation?

Always remember that a person that "owns" vacant land that is not being used for any purpose doesn't need that land.

It is justifiably noted that those that don't have any actual need for the land could be "losers" based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person but is that really something we should be concerned with? They are infringing upon our Right of Liberty for personal profit and that can't be rationalized IMHO. I'm not going to voluntarily limit my Freedom to Exericse my Inalienable Right of Liberty just so someone can earn a profit. I will voluntarily limit my Freedom to Exercise my Inalienable Right of Liberty if it serves a purpose that benefits society but I see "real estate speculation" in unused land that artificially drives up it's costs for the personal financial gain of "wealthy" individuals as not being beneficial to society. Only land that is being "used" for a purpose that benefits society warrants the voluntary limitation upon my Freedom to Exercise my Inalienable Right of Liberty.     

From a "transitional" perspective we could give the existing "owners" of unused land reasonable opportunity to "put the land to use" for the purpose intended. For example a person that "owns" five acres of "commercial property" could arguably build a commercial structure on it and use or lease that structure out so that a commerical entrepreneur can use it. Of course another commercial building would also drive down the lease "value" of other existing commercial properties based upon the law of supply and demand (i.e. capitialism) so this is also a consideration.This gets into the little details of course but the concept is sound.