| | Jim,
Does this mean the tract of land I might own is entirely up for bid, excluding the few hundred square feet upon which my house is built and the access-way up to it? The lawn, the trees, the bushes and whatever else "not in use" are essentially "community property", which I have the obligation to make accessible to, or at least available for purchase by, the general public? (Of course, I can't rightly say "available for purchase" if I don't own the thing.) If I'm not "using" the thing (not turning it into greater value), my not "using" it invalidates any claims of property, so long as it isn't man-made? BTW, why restrict it to natural resources? Unused man-made values are just things of greater value, like a river has more value than a rock. (correct me if this isn't what you meant)
At what point does whoever decide I'm not "using" natural property? Perhaps I want the seclusion provided by extra acreage, or I'm planning on turning the land into a man-made value later on. Is there a time standard that goes with this moral obligation? I understand what you mean by creating more value on untouched land. It makes financial sense in the long run to exploit the natural resources on a given space, to create value where there was none. But because I can do something doesn't necessarily mean I have the moral obligation to do it. If I like the thing's current value--a secluded space to wander in, a nice view, or just some prime real estate that I like to know is mine--I should feel no moral obligation to make it more valuable, or sell it to someone who can. If I own a piece of land, I probably have a job that I'm good at, and am creating enough value in that. Until I feel like adding to my assets, that is.
Your basic idea is good, though. We should create as much value as we desire. But that desire places no obligation on us to create added value where or when we don't want it, and it certainly places no obligation on us to society.
J
(Edited by Jeremy Johnson on 3/06, 5:15am)
|
|
