Justification for right to own land
I have a bit of a hard time with the justification of ownership of a plot of land by an individual. After reading Rothbard’s libertarian manifesto, in particular the section against Georgism to justify land ownership as property, I found it to be somewhat roundabout.
It does follow from ownership of self and the right to the fruits of labor that ownership of property (property being physical things) is a naturally derived right. However, it seems like there is no true right for an individual to own the space they execute the labor on. This is not to say they would not have the right to, for example, fully own a wheat field that they till and farm. But it does not seem to follow that he has exclusive right to occupy the space which that field is on. It seems as though this space is, to use the common parlance, provided by god for all man.
Therefore it seems as though it would make sense (at least it would be permissible, at most intellectually consistent) to apply a flat land value tax to “own” a space of land, essentially renting use of this space from society as a whole and to then distribute this to every member of society evenly, to collectivize the land which was provided for all. This is because space, being the metaphysical vacuum which things exist in, is provided for all and cannot be “improved” through labor to claim it as personal property.
I basically just want to better understand, how is it justified that any man can have the exclusive right to own a plot of land. In short, a natural rights explanation against Georgism.
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society