Property Rights in A Market Economy

[parsley]

Vagabonddreamer,

The Topic with 100 postings was named, "Some insight into problems in Market Economy."

I was trying to address the problem.

You said:
"parsley...who TRULY has property rights in Canada?? you are WAY too smart to fall into the illusionist trap that you have property rights??..just ask developers that want to take a piece of land...and build on it...the amount of regulation and red tape...the different levels of government control...you are allowed to use your property...until you decide to actually DO something with it....vs"

And of course, I agree that property rights are a problem because there are some areas where they are absent, some areas where they are waning, and some area where they are being downright attacked.

I would like property rights fortified, re-established, and become a dependable, establish, non-negotiable pillar in a market economy.

I am very interested in, and in admiration of Garry Breitkreuz's persistent and consistent pursuit of property rights for Canadians. Pars

[chuckChuck]

Parsley are you taking about the property rights landowners enjoy when it comes to the oil industry. In a truly freemarket, oil companies would have to pay the going market price for surface leases, not the the rates applied by government regulation through the arbitration board. Do you think the Sask Party will ever move towards a full freemarket and true property rights for landowners? Because as it stands now landowners are subject to oil industry friendly regulations that take away the property rights of landowners in favour of the oil business. Many oil busineses are so anti regulations, but are very dependent upon this set of regulations to expropriate surface access without fair compensation.

[parsley]

What you are mainly referring to is probably Crown minerals on farmland.

I simply don't know what you do, chuckchuck.

The Government wanted to impose their presence and interference between landowner and oil company, and have done so. The slow erosion continues to erode.

It's difficult to 'undo'.

The mineral taxes the Saskatchewan Government applied in the '50's certainly netted them a whack of mineral titles, didn't it, as farmers, one by one, simply could not pay the taxed fee. Consequently,the Government took possession of countless mineral titles from family farms.

Anyone at present, owning full mineral rights, certainly has the option to refuse any and all oil exploration. And property rights, firm ones, protected from government taxing-nets is crucial, imho.


I don't know what would satisfy a farmer, when someone else holds the minerals on your land, other than to say that the pre-existing condition is clearly stated on the title when you purchase or inherit.

Government acting as an arbiter between company and landowner works well when the government simply act as the referee BUT Governments have become the player, a major player, looking out for their own interests, and of course, chuckchuck, you well know by now how I feel about government intervention. Pars

[bduke]

It seems to me that the intentional exclusion of property rights in our constitution is the fundamental reason for the low regard of ownership.....especially in the courts.

When the Govt of the day insisted upon Canada bringing home its own constitution from Britain, the main players were all endorsing a "just society"...a society of equalities....of entitlement to higher standards of living.....of more private liberties ....of immediate rights of immigrants and refugees....of more lax criminality....of broader biculturism and religious rights....and a much more socially focused country.

Remember the main players....PM Trudeau...Min.Cretien...Min. Romanow....Min McMurtry.....

Had property rights been included, how would protection of such property be viewed in the courts?....Would owning and using arms to protect be illegal?

Would marketing boards suppressing people's property be illegal?

Would demonstrations on one's property be illegal?....and on and on...

However, even though we should have ..IMHO...property rights, they would not exclude expropriations.
But the adjudicated settlements would be most lkely based upon acceptable replacement or a value thereof...and the court settlements, when necessary... would need to respect these rights.

The Indian Reservations are land which were reserved..i.e. excluded...from Canada...but we still have highways ...power and telephone ..etc..going through them.

The conflict of interest of Govt benefits from O&G production is blatantly unethical....agreed...

The muni road system is mostly paid by landowners....

The severance...inconvenience...nuisance..noxious weed control.... and other adverse effects are mostly born by the farmers and ranchers with inadequate compensation.

But in a Socialist regime the greater good of the people prevails.....much to my chagrin....Bill

[cropduster]

Interesting comment about the `mineral taxes` Parsnip.Was that a `benefit` of Tommy Douglas??

[parsley]

Landowners in Saskatchewan have yet to find a penicillin that will cure us from Tommy Douglas' taxing visits in the middle of the dark nights of the fifties. Pars

[chuckChuck]

Current conservative governments are in favour of allowing the expropriation of surface rights to access minerals owned by the crown or any other third party. That should give you a pretty good indication of their policy on property rights. As a land owner when it comes to the oil and gas industry you don't have any rights unless you own the minerals. Do you think the oil industry wants an open market for surface rights? Or do you think they prefer socialist intervention to allow easy access?

[vagabonddreamer]

Parlsey...your opening statement in this thread suggests to me that i somehow marginalized your comments with respect to property rights and a free market economy...i no way did i intend this..and if it was percieved that way i apologize...the points are VERY valid and their validity grows exponentially as the world becomes a smaller place...foreign ownership, a melting pot of cultures, religions and economic beliefs all point to the fact that human beings INNATELY need governance...

religion tried the role of governance...but the various religious factions botched it up SO horribly (and still do)...that it (religion) could not sustain itself...

so now we get "government" (veiled control of rights and population)...who are botching things up equally as bad...

bduke eloquently covered many issues with respect to property rights..to add to his list...the problem of USE of property...ie...i grow a crop...and you as my neighbour decide to grow a crop that indadvertently affects my crop in a negative way...also...where do WATER rights enter into property rights...we talk quite a bit about crops and cattle etc...but where is ALL of it without water...if a lake is on my property...can i dam it and close up the flow of water that traditionally went onto YOUR property??

the thing of it is...vagabonddreamer, parsley, cottonpicken, francisco, classicliberal...are of a creed that disdains government control...but a country cannot be run based on our principles...the AVERAGE person does not have the ability to conciously make lucid decsions...and without SOME form of control...once again anarchy will ensue...(so to appease my capitalistic opines...lol...vagabonddreamer looks down from his lofty heights at the unwashed masses that NEED guidance...and with a philanthropic wave of his arms...says...thereby goes my gift to you...subjigation of my heartfelt desire for self governance...lmao@vagabonddreamer...tripping on his soapbox again...)

what is also interesting if you look at it from way up in space...is...the aligning of all the different hot buttons of all the different players...and try to figure out how you could manage an economic model that took ALL of them into consideration...given...that each person TRULY believes that his or her (manifesto)...is the ONE that should garner the attention...

bduke...your last statement about the "greater the good of the people prevails much to my shagrin"...just for a giggle...imagine...if suddenly the government de-regulated EVERYTHING to do with personal freedoms and property rights...i have done this many times for entertainment...someone should do a movie that deals with the FIRST week only of such a hypothetical situation...vs



man there are some very smart people on this site...vs

[bduke]

Vagabonddreamer......I included the "greater good" statement....as oft repeated to me by my NDP outlaws...expecting it to be questioned.

I haven't time now to properly explain my perspective, but consider a democracy within the bounds of a balanced charter....and the legislations and regulations being principle based vs prescriptive rules based.

The Govt/courts would mostly be umpiring....within the guidlines of the Country....and not arbitrarily writing more pervasive laws, regulations and adjudications to further their philosophies.

My Libertarian tendencies are alive today...lol....Bill

[checking]

Parsley, could you direct me to a specific internet address site that indicates that the T. C. Douglas government of the 1950's used a mineral tax fee that was applied to private mineral rights owned by farmers causing their mineral rights titles to be seized for failure to pay the required mineral fees? Thank you.

[mustardman]

Parsley you truly are the Rush limbaw of the north , better be careful he may come a courtin'. Then you two could sit on the back porch swing , sippin' on sasparillos and Makin up stories to spread on the air waves the next day. lol

[parsley]

chuckchuck,

I didn't specify the Conservative government. I particularly named Garry Breitkreuz. Big difference. There is such a difference in focus, chuckchuck,even amongst the so-called "like-minded".

Some religious groups and some governments will quote the bible when they refer to gay marriage, but they will ignore the bible when they want a casino in their area, or apply for grants from the profits of such.

"Do you think the oil industry wants an open market for surface rights?"

Yes.

"Or do you think they prefer socialist intervention to allow easy access?"

No.

You never know when a Government,being the greedy bastards that they evolve into, will expropriate an entire industry. Is that clear enough for you? LOL chuck, Pars

[parsley]

"The mineral taxes the Saskatchewan Government applied in the '50's certainly netted them a whack of mineral titles, didn't it, as farmers, one by one, simply could not pay the taxed fee. Consequently,the Government took possession of countless mineral titles from family farms."

No Tommy there, checking. Your words, I'm afraid.


"Landowners in Saskatchewan have yet to find a penicillin that will cure us from Tommy Douglas' taxing visits in the middle of the dark nights of the fifties."

I was actually being facetious and referring to the Wheat Board here, you should have caught that one, lol, and we've never gotten over the taxing sections of 46(d) and 14(b) of the Wheat Board Act, which he worked so hard, to have passed.

I did a 2 second google search, there are thousands of pages:

http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2005/McGrane.pdf

which says:

"The second dispute was the threat of the federal government to disallow the Farm Security Act and the Mineral Taxation Act which had imposed a levy on hitherto tax-free subsurface mineral rights."
Interesting site, btw.

If I have time, I will drag out the old taxes. With the mineral tax on them. And post them on Parsley's Notebook.

In the meantime, go read my Editorial piece, mustardman, but stay well back at breakfast because the smell of piddled pants is not conducive to generating an apppetite, and it looks like you have a hearty appetitie for poking sticks at the poor helpless defenseless female contributers on AV. LOL, Your pars, as always.

[parsley]

vagabonddreamer, I am of different sense, albeit perhaps not common.

I have faith in man to evolve into responsible beings, much as children eventually evolve into adults. Expect the best and you get the best.

But more important, if you have someone slapping your ass, well that may be rather fun, but I digress, 24/7, you do not learn by doing, or learn from experience, or change with pride. You need a bloody character nanny named Ms.Regulation.

A perfect example is a father who will not stand back and let his son try!

Families learn by doing and observing.

So do communities. So do nations. It's called evolving and having trust in individuals to believe in themselves and in others.

The less you are regulated the better the response because you have no one to thank or blame but yourself. It forces transparency and fosters trust.

Obviously you have not raised six children.lol

I am not saying a society can be 100% regulation free, but I am saying he less the regulation, the better the society. Rules become so ridiculous, all rules lose meaning. Parsley

[parsley]

mustardman,
Rush is not my type, but Rex from Cross Country Checkup could be, as would any woman worth her height in centimeters agree, which I'm utterly surprised you did not predict. pars.