Property at the Pleasure of the State, Part II

Justice and State Expropriation

Madeleine over at M&M has posted recently on the State's expropriation of minerals. This matter is of great utility in helping people discern whether they are Fabian socialists, and whether they worship at the altar of materialist egalitarianism. (Our view is that almost to a person, New Zealanders worship at that altar.)

In Part II of her article, Madeleine points out that successive statutes in New Zealand have already expropriated all mineral wealth that might happen to lie in any land which you own. This includes all gold, silver, and oil. She reviews the traditional justification for such expropriations without compensation and finds them all to be irrelevant. Arguments based upon economics or the national interest just cannot bear the heavy lifting required.

Now rumour has it that successive Prime Ministers of this country have been afflicted with a psychological disorder, known in the journals as the Clampett Syndrome. This disorder finds the notion that backward rubes might become fabulously wealthy at the discovery of oil or gold on their properties to be profoundly nauseating. The only known cure for the syndrome is expropriation by the Crown.

But here's the point. Do you think it's fair that someone might discover oil or gold on his property, and without any particular expenditure of effort or investment of capital suddenly overnight become fabulously wealthy? After all, he did nothing to deserve it. Surely wealth by such happenstance is unfair--it is something which everybody deserves to benefit from, like warmth from the sun, or oxygen in the air. Therefore, it is only just that the State take ownership by expropriation, so that all get to benefit, albeit indirectly.

If you agree to this proposition we submit that you are worshipper at the altar of materialist egalitarianism.

Now some might try to wriggle off the petard at this point by arguing that ownership of land does not include what is beneath the surface of the land. Sorry. Part I of Madeleine's article points out that common law rights of property very definitely includes what is under the soil, as well as what is above it. Consider the following:

Drawing from Talmudic Law, the jurist Accursius of Bologna wrote the phrase cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (to whom belongs the soil it is his, even to heaven and to the middle of the earth) as a gloss on Justinian’s Digest. By the 16th century this maxim had become accepted common law doctrine for determining the extent of the rights enjoyed by a tenant in fee simple (“landowner”). The English Laws Act retrospectively declared that “so far as applicable to the circumstances of the Colony of New Zealand,” all statute and common laws of England became “part of the laws of New Zealand.” This was confirmed by the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988. Since 1840 to the present day there have been few instances where the court has held that a statute or common law of England was not applicable to the circumstances of the colony of New Zealand. Hence, in the absence of statutes overriding it, the maxim is part of New Zealand law.

(The original contains four source references, for those interested.)

Materialist egalitarianism always sneaks the notion of deservedness into property rights. Its most striking creedal expression is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (Karl Marx, 1875). Property ownership must be overlaid with an egalitarian rule of equality or fairness.

The Christian faith avoids this ethical monstrosity by grounding property rights, in part, in the doctrine of Providence, not egalitarianism. One man has more abilities than another; another has more needs; still others strike oil on their land. Such disparities are part of the gracious disposition of God. They have nothing to do with justice or injustice. If that offends you, it is probably a measure of how corroded your soul has become by envy.

Is it not passing strange that almost universally New Zealanders would support state expropriation of mineral wealth from landowners, yet take delight in lotteries and other games of chance? They would ardently defend the "right" of lottery winners to retain their winnings. Good luck! they say. If the government were consistent it would expropriate all lottery winnings on the grounds that it is unfair that some benefit while others do not. If it is considered not to be a blasphemy of materialist egalitarianism to allow the lottery winner to retain his earnings (even without taxing them) why not the landowner who discovers oil or gold on his land?

Ah, yes, but the ubiquitous addiction to lotteries in New Zealand does not negate the universal hold of materialist egalitarianism; it confirms it. For the lottery offers the prospect of extraordinarily good fortune to everyone, for the inconsequential price of a ticket, which amount to nothing in the grand scheme of things. "You, too, could be a winner" is the implicit egalitarian premise of all lotteries.

That is why our pagan culture tolerates and promotes lotteries, whilst defending state expropriation of minerals as inherently just. Both alike rest firmly upon the established religion of the day. The former is just and legitimate; the latter is unjust and requires expropriation. Only in a world where materialistic egalitarianism is the established religion could this hold true.