Libertarians believe each individual has the right to life, liberty, and property. Yet, we cannot truly have these without an equal access to natural resources. Government since its earliest beginnings has prevented equal access. We agree with Thomas Paine and others that the government system of unequal rights to land has distorted the equity of opportunity in the state of nature and the unearned value from land should be returned to all as just compensation for their loss of opportunity to share in the bounty of nature, because of the landownership system established by the State. As we consider this proposition we need to keep in mind the libertarian principle, initiate no harm. Historically, land ownership has been either collective (communism or socialism) or government granted monopoly to individuals or groups. Neither of these ownership systems honor the libertarian idea of initiate no harm, as they do economic harm.

Historian Fernand Braudel asserts the existence of three economies in dynamic opposition to each other. The three economies are: 1) the market economy, consisting of the great mass of transactions that show up in statistics today and involve competitive activity; 2) the self-sufficiency economy, consisting of bartering of goods and services, or cooperative activities; and 3) the capitalist economy, today as in the past consisting of the big financial transactions carried out by a small percentage of extremely wealthy individuals, families and corporations. For most of its history the capitalist economy has been dominated by government monopoly capitalism as was the case with the big Indies companies. The State has created this situation in land ownership as well.

The loss of liberty throughout prehistory and history seems to be closely associated with the power and natural resources of the average individual being usurped by the shamans, the warriors, or the elders. This loss has usually occurred where individuals have been restricted from moving away from coercion, by natural environments, religious beliefs, or a lack of power. The vast majority of governments that have come into being during historic time have done so through coercive means. The power elite takes control of the land and the fruits of the commoner's labor. The individual in their natural state are separated from their means of survival by the coercion. Then to consolidate their power, the power elite grant (as an extension of sovereign immunity and eminent domain) land titles and tax subsidies to a less powerful elite. A coalition large enough to hold the balance of the population in servitude, is born.

In evolutionary terms, the inefficiency of this kind of government, wherein the unproductive members force the productive members of society to support them, lead to ineffective competition with other governments. This ineffective competitiveness will cause the government to collapse or will bring about modifications that increase competitiveness.

In feudal times, right to person and property was limited to the land-lords. Later, such measures as the Enclosure Acts further reduced the rights of peasants who were forced from the land. The Industrial Revolution provided work and raised the standard of living for most. In America, access to cheap land allowed the workers a means of sucess. After 1788, Americans were determined not to repeat the mistakes of the English in the creation of mercantilist corporations with land monopolies. Corporations were limited in power and duration to accomplish specific tasks such as building roads.

After the Civil War, corporations grew in power and influence. With government granted special privleges, corporations controlled large tracts of land in the western territories. Poverty grew with progress; most men were denied land ownership and free access to a competitive economic infrastructure necessary for free commerce. The law favored the corporations and land monopolists. After the depression of 1873-77, corporations dominated government, land, capital, and labor. Even today, 78% of all private land is owned by 5% of the population and corporations have greater access to public lands and natural resources then individuals.

The chief culprit in monopoly practices has always been the State. Large-size governments and organizations create inaccurate information feedback loops; the more over-centralized the decision making apparatus the more likely a bad decision regarding the problem at hand. In economics the worst case is centralized command and control; the best case is a natural economic balance, in a Braudelian sense between the three economies (community economy, market economy, and capital economy). For example, in the USA we do not have a natural economy in land, but rather over-concentrated land ownership as a historical result of the "system of unequal rights in land introduced by the warlords turned royalty, and after the revolutions of 1689 and 1776, ratified by republics who granted land monopolies after killing the original inhabitants.

Under the system of land monopoly, land owners benefitted from price increases in land without making improvements. The over-concentrated land ownership pattern increases the cost of land rental to the landless by keeping land out of use, mostly to get the unearned value of land as a result of everyone else' economic activity. The unearned economic power of the landed can coerce just as effectively as the weapons of the warrior.

The landless are denied an equal opportunity to natural resources and an equal opportunity to compete. And if this cultural path is not modified, the USA natural economy will become more distorted and it will eventually collapse, as did the USSR. The problem with the USSR was they favored the community economy over the market and capital economies. They failed to see that the whole group benefits economically by making sure each individual has an adequate resource base in a free market economy from which to operate. A restructuring of monopoly landownership practice while maintaining present possession and use practices can resolve the libertarian desire for an orderly society without relying on a coercive government to achieve that order. The collection of an annual deed fee based on the unearned rental value that accrues to land by virtue of site location and natural resource value, and using that fee for compensation to those displaced from equal opportunity to use natural resources, is all that is needed to right this wrong.

It is the duty of the libertarian movement to continue increasing the number of people enjoying the fruits of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We need to dismiss the erroneous Neoclassical economic assumption that land is merely capital, and return to the clarity of Classical Economists' claim of three factors of production: land, labor and capital. Land is a unique factor of production since it was not made by human hands. We need to view it as such. To fully have the right to life, liberty, and property, all individuals need to have equal access to land and natural resources. There is a cost to having an organized and orderly society. Richard Epstein makes the case for a few simple rules being necessary to make a libertarian society. Such a society would minimize the cost to individuals to enjoy the fruits of an order which makes freedom and peace possible. Self-ownership, the right to property in the Lockean sense, the right to equitable contract, a fair means of conflict resolution, and torts for injury and damages must be protected in a libertarian society. The right to property must include equal access to natural resources or in lieu of that, just compensation.

Credit for inspiration in this essay: David Bergland-Libertarianism in One Easy Lesson, 1984; Fernand Braudel-Civilization and Capitalism, 1981; Robert Carneiro-A Theory of the Origin of the State, 1970; Henry George-Progress and Poverty, 1879; James Miller-Living Systems, 1978; Thomas Paine-Agrarian Justice, 1797; Richard Epstein-Simple Rules for a Complex World, 1995.