.
Citizenship and Equal Rights to Land |
| [Reprinted from The
Gargoyle, January 1976] |
It so happened, I was born in New Jersey, U.S.A. I might have been born
in Moscow, Russia, or in Peking, China, or South Africa, or So.
Carolina.
In other words, I came into the world at a place. It rather seems to me
that there is a scheme of things, and it is intended that human beings
fit into this scheme.
Human beings must have, in addition to air to breath, and water to
drink, space to occupy. They must have food to sustain life. On most
parts of the planet Earth they also need clothing and shelter. The only
source of food, clothing and shelter is Natural Resources. Therefore
human beings must have access to Natural Resources if they are to live.
It is also evident that Natural Resources vary as to quality, extent
and location. For instance, soil varies from the most fertile by degrees
to the most barren. Minerals vary from the fittest to the worthless. For
particular uses, locations vary from the highly desired to those desired
least.
How is the allocation for use of natural resources to be determined?
Which human beings are entitled to use the very best and which
next-best, etc., down to those who must use the least desirable? If
human being "B" surrenders his right to use the best to human
being "A", would it not seem fair and just that "B"
be reimbursed, for so doing? Of course there follows "C" and "D"
and many, many more human beings, each surrendering their equal rights
to superior resources, accepting use of poorer ones.
Is it an impossible task to devise and administer a system which would
give every human being compensation for surrendering to all others the
advantage of using the superior Natural Resources?
Probably -- yes. At least, at this point in human development such a
system cannot be conceived. However, some approach to it might be within
the realm of possibility. What is involved roughly may be divided, into
two categories: the Rental Value of Land and the Severance Value of
Natural Resources. When the annual rental value of land is collected by
the community for the support of local government, as an "example,
the effect is that each person using land above the marginal land is
paying into a fund and that fund in effect is used to reimburse those
who surrender their equal right to use superior land.
Thus the desirability of equalization of rights of individuals to the
surface of the earth would seem to be achieved. In other words, I, born
in New Jersey, by virtue of the present scheme of things am a citizen of
the U.S.A. (a political and geographical unit). I am entitled to the
very best "chunk of land surface" in the United States. So is
every other U.S. citizen. However, as things exist now administration on
a local basis seems best for "site occupancy". Therefore a
system whereby the annual rental value of land is collected by the
community would seem to be a fair and equitable Land Tenure System.
Now, in a larger political and geographical unit of which I am a
citizen, there are minerals, natural gas and, oil, etc. perhaps none of
which are to be found in the local community in which I reside, or even
in the State. But they are found elsewhere including, off the coast of
some States such as Mississippi. I believe I am just as much entitled to
ownership of these natural resources as is the guy who just happened to
be born in Miss, or in Oklahoma City. Therefore, if the Federal
Government of the U.S. is to collect the severance value (royalties) of
natural resources, in effect, I would be reimbursed for surrendering my
equal right of proportionate ownership in all such natural resources.
It seems to me that if all the royalties for inland and off-shore
severance value of such resources were collected by a Federal agency
there might be sufficient revenue derived for-the support of the Federal
Government and I think an excess. This excess might well be allocated
for use in the States for such things as highways, parks, and the like.
The "accident" of place of birth then would not be so
advantageous to some and disadvantageous to others. All would be sharing
equally in the use of the earth.
|