Would there be any functional difference?

Reply

Aster_Lacnala Posted: Mon, Dec 28 2009 10:05 AM

rated by 0 users

Suppose a person held some land.

1) The person sells the land to those who desire it, and they become owners.

2) The person contracts people to homestead his land in his name.  The contract specifies that they do not need to pay rent and are owners of anything they produce on the land.  The contract itself is transferable, so others could buy it and homestead the land.

Now, if the owner chooses not to enforce any other rules on the usage of his land, and chooses not to evict anyone, would there be any functional difference between the two?

Reply

TelfordUS replied on Mon, Dec 28 2009 1:14 PM

rated by 0 users

Aster_Lacnala:

Suppose a person held some land.

1) The person sells the land to those who desire it, and they become owners.

2) The person contracts people to homestead his land in his name.  The contract specifies that they do not need to pay rent and are owners of anything they produce on the land.  The contract itself is transferable, so others could buy it and homestead the land.

Now, if the owner chooses not to enforce any other rules on the usage of his land, and chooses not to evict anyone, would there be any functional difference between the two?

Is the contract non-copyable? If so, then only a set amount of people have a right to that land. 

Also, in the latter, the people could just take the land against the will of the landowner and get away with it (that is if he still doesnt enforce his defensive right) so they wouldn't have to cooperate with him.

Reply

Aster_Lacnala replied on Mon, Dec 28 2009 1:19 PM

rated by 0 users

The contract would be copyable, but it wouldn't change ownership.  IE, you could own the contract to a set piece of that land, and further subdivide it as you choose, but since you can't give away ownership of something you don't own, all you can do is contract out your own homesteading contract.

As for enforcement, yes, people could at some point simply ignore the original land owner, so he would need some kind of defensive ability to maintain his right.  Assuming he has that, though, or assuming people held to their contracts, it would be the same?

Reply

Shawn77 replied on Mon, Dec 28 2009 1:26 PM

rated by 0 users

Why would any owner choose option 2.  What is the benefit of ownership if you get no value from it?

Reply

Aster_Lacnala replied on Mon, Dec 28 2009 1:37 PM

rated by 0 users

His valuation of ownership is his decision.  The reasons he does so do not matter - perhaps he gets a warm fuzzy feeling deep down at seeing it as his.  Perhaps he enjoys the power trip of knowing that he could cancel all the contracts and evict everyone, even though he (as stated) doesn't.  Perhaps he sees future benefits at the gratitude of the people living there.

So basically, no owner would choose option 2 if they got NO value from it, but if the value they received was intangible they might.

Also... Telford - wouldn't that be a problem if he chose not to sell at all?  If he can't adequately defend his land, people may take it, regardless of his rights.

Reply

Shawn77 replied on Mon, Dec 28 2009 2:01 PM

rated by 0 users

Typically with a contract there is consideration both ways.  I'm not sure a warm and fuzzy feeling would qualify of course I am not an authority on the subject.

Aster_Lacnala:

Perhaps he enjoys the power trip of knowing that he could cancel all the contracts and evict everyone

If this were the case I don't think the residents would be the best stewards of the property given they would be concerned that the fruits of their investment in the property could be taken from them.  I have no doubt that people take actions that are not always based on the most efficietn allocation of resources ie hiring your cousin and not the most qualified applicant. As far as  a landowner choosing option 2 I would say they are well within their rights.  Unless part of the contract eventually tranfered ownership to the homesteaders you would probably end up with one big ghetto.

Reply

Aster_Lacnala replied on Mon, Dec 28 2009 3:12 PM

rated by 0 users

Hmm. You make a good point.  Though, I suppose it would also depend on the likelihood that they expected to be evicted.  This might involve the reputation of the land owner.

Reply

JAlanKatz replied on Wed, Dec 30 2009 3:11 PM

rated by 0 users

Aster_Lacnala:

Perhaps he enjoys the power trip of knowing that he could cancel all the contracts and evict everyone, even though he (as stated) doesn't.  Perhaps he sees future benefits at the gratitude of the people living there.

How is this not a functional difference?  Would you yourself be more or less willing to improve the land if you were one of the homesteaders, vs. if you bought it from the owner?

Reply

Aster_Lacnala replied on Wed, Dec 30 2009 5:31 PM

rated by 0 users

Less willing, of course, unless there was some assurance that I wouldn't be evicted.  But I think it does play into the likelihood of this happening.

For example, the United States has, for good or ill, eminent domain laws.  The government could come in tomorrow and say, "We need you property.  Here is what we think it is worth."  And yet, I don't really expect them to, so I improve on it.

Remember that the contract specifies that the tenants own anything they produce on the land.  So if the renters builds a house, and then the owner decides to evict them, the owner must pay them for the house.  The exact details would depend on the contract - does the land owner get to value the house, or the tenants?  Or does the contract specify a third party to value it?  If the land owner can't afford to buy the house, he effectively can't evict the tenants unless he sold some of his land.