We Should Try to Own Rather Than Rent

Property protects sovereignty. (DN 3.9)

Cover page | Preface | Introduction 1 | Introduction 2 | Introduction 3 |

(Part I) Why: 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.10 | 1.11 | 1.12 | 1.13 | 1.14 | 1.15 | 1.16 | 1.17 | 1.18 | 1.19 | 1.20 | 1.21 |1.22

(Part II) What: 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.10 I 2.11 | 2.12 | 2.13 | 2.14 | 2.15 | 2.16 | 2.17 | 2.XX | 2.18 | 2.19 | 2.20 | 2.21 | | Where: 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 3.9

Chapter 3.9
Allodial Land, 1

I do not generally give trigger warnings, but I do sometimes preemptively apologize for something potentially bothersome I am about to say. Today’s something is comparatively mild, and perhaps even somewhat obvious. Nonetheless, I apologize in advance for my thesis here, which is that

We should all try to own property, if possible, rather than renting our dwelling space.

I get that some people are not in a position, due to finances or current circumstances, to do this. But if there is any way, at any point, that you can pivot to ownership rather than renting, you should. I would like herein to enumerate a few reasons why. (And then, in the next installment, we can talk about some ways to make it easier.)

First, a quick review…

The title and subject of this chapter is Where. Here we are discussing the ubiety of the distributed nation.

ubiety
ubi·​e·​ty | yüˈbīətē

the quality or state of being in a place: such as
a: the state of being placed in a definite local relation : position, location
b: the abstract quality of being in position: whereness

Thus far in this chapter, we have discussed

• The absolutely non-negotiable nature of property rights,

• The reality that you are naturally free, no matter where you are or what government claims overlordship over you,

• The fact that the distributed nation is meant for people all over the world,

• The importance of families for the continuance of the distributed nation (and the species) into the future,

• The importance of acting as a sovereign, noble being, upholding the noble principles of natural law in your sovereign space,

• Some potential ways in which we can sub-organize, and

• The importance of working together (without losing even an iota of our independence as individuals).

Now, we must circle back and explore some further concepts associated with property.

We have described our distributed nation as a “worldwide archipelago of sovereign people, sovereign spaces, chosen communities, and voluntary cooperation.” We have discussed the notion—which is absolutely essential to the concept of the distributed nation—that you should not have to move in order to be free. You are a sovereign being right where you are, and must be treated as such.

Yet we cannot deny two things:

1. Property (a sovereign space) is essential for your continuance as a living being.

2. Owned property makes it easier to express and enjoy one’s sovereignty.

Since individual sovereignty lies at the core of natural law, and since natural law is at the core of our shared principles as a distributed nation of sovereign beings, we must argue that owning property is a desirable goal, to be pursued if possible.

Conventional reasons

You have no doubt heard various conventional arguments for ownership many times before. A simple web search (or AI query) will reveal some standards:

When you own property, you build equity. Setting aside busts, bubbles, and cyclical variations, over the long haul, property generally appreciates in value.

My wife and I bought a house near the peak of the bubble in 2007. The bubble burst in 2008, and, like so many others, our home value was cut in half. (Worse than half, actually.) Yet we held fast. We continued to live there, and then we moved and took on a family of renters. And when we finally sold in 2022, we actually made a decent profit.

During the 11 years that we had renters, they built nothing for themselves. Rather, they built our equity for us. Again, I know not everyone is in a position to buy, and perhaps that was the only scenario that made sense for them at the time. But if you can own something, you should. Better to build your own equity than someone else’s.

Naturally, a further search will easily reveal plenty of other conventional financial justifications: predictable housing costs, various tax benefits, and the possibility of rental income when and if you wish. Houses usually make good investments.

We also find that conventional arguments begin to blend with, and give way to, arguments that are more directly pertinent to our goals as a distributed nation…

Greater (enjoyment of) sovereignty

There isn’t such a thing as greater or lesser sovereignty. You are sovereign. Full stop. But there are conditions in which one is better able to enjoy one’s sovereignty. (In this case, “enjoy” means to experience, benefit from, have use of, or be in full communion with.)

If no one initiates any sort of coercive force against you, or imposes any involuntary transactions or authority upon you, then your enjoyment of your sovereignty is maximized. If you live in a totalitarian mega-state, or are enslaved, said enjoyment is minimized. And everything else is on a continuum in between.

Owning a piece of property helps move one to the better end of that continuum. This is especially the case in countries in which the government demonstrates at least some amount of greater respect for individual property rights.

Property creates an extra barrier between oneself and all the forces of external abuse—governmental or otherwise—that conspire to rob one of one’s enjoyment of one’s own sovereignty. Property constitutes both a legal and a physical barrier to encroachment.

One can take steps to defend one’s property by physical means (walls, hedgerows, etc.) and electronic means (security systems and surveillance). Legally, one is considered to have rights on one’s own property that do not exist elsewhere (and much of those legal conventions do reflect realities of natural law).

Property, in other words, provides greater protection of one’s sovereignty.

In a very real sense, all rights are property rights, since all rights are extensions of your self ownership. Owning real property helps enhance, extend, and protect your enjoyment of your self-ownership—of your very being.

Surviving and thriving

As we have discussed at some length, property, in one form or another, is necessary for survival. And survival is the first right of any sovereign being. Of course one can survive without owning a house or a piece of land. But having those things makes it easier.

Property grants one the flexibility to choose. If you want to build a tiny house on your property and rent it out, you can. If you want to farm carrots, bunnies, or bees, you can. Your property is yours. The degree to which the state violates your enjoyment of full ownership, and hence this flexibility, is an issue we will soon discuss (and generally speaking, any such interference is a violation of your sovereignty).

But even in such a regime, one still enjoys far more flexibility, and ability to thrive, on one’s own land than anywhere else.

Sovereign houses

The castle doctrine is long established in Anglophone jurisprudence. This doctrine deals in large measure with self-defense, but underlying that notion is the established truth that in one’s own home, one’s sovereignty must be absolute. As Pitt the Elder phrased it,

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter—the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter.”

You enjoy some of this in a rental property. But it’s not the same.

Indeed, having rented for half my adult life and owned for the other half, I can attest to the difference. You really are “king” on your own land. And as we have discussed, you should be.

You are, after all, a sovereign being. You ought to enjoy a condition of ownership appropriate to that sovereignty, and to the nobility of your principles and aspirations.

There is a pride of ownership that only comes from having one’s own property. Once, while living in Los Angeles in a rented house with my fiancée/wife, I did a massive landscaping project. I had finally gotten sick of the rubble, the palm-tree detritus, and the urban-apocalypse vibe of the back yard. I spent days and scratched my arms to hell, but in the end, I made it really pretty.

But the whole project kind of tasted like ash to me, because the property wasn’t ours. I was not building something for our future; I was making a mere temporary improvement in our lives, while providing our cheapskate landlords with a long-term equity improvement.

This contrast can be seen in the appearance of rental properties and owned homes. No trend is absolute of course, but a drive through a neighborhood of owned single-family dwellings vs. one predominated by rental properties usually reveals a significant difference. People who own are incentivized to make improvements.

Ownership engenders long-term thinking (low time-preferences) and better stewardship of owned land. The tragedy of the commons is a very real phenomenon. When no one owns something, it is in everyone’s incentive to extract as much in the short term, without regard to the long-term effects on the land or resource in question.

This is clearly seen in the world of commercial fishing. Free-for-all ocean fishing has driven some species dangerously close to the brink of extinction. But when particular fishing operations are granted a temporary sort of “property right” over a particular section of ocean, their time preferences immediately lower. All of a sudden, they stop thinking about getting all the fish before the other boat does, and think instead about preserving the health of that area so there will be adequate fish in the years to come.

We can think of property ownership on several different levels, including

• Allodial: Your land is absolutely yours, with no superior landlord.

• Fee simple: You hold title to your land, and can sell it or bequeath it to heirs, but the government claims to be your superior landlord and will tax the property and set restrictions upon what you can do with it.

• Usufruct: The government grants you a title to occupy a particular section of land, but you cannot sell it or bequeath it to heirs.

In America, we see the effect of usufruct especially on Indian reservations. Why care for land when it isn’t really yours? Why make long-term improvements when you cannot pass it on to your children? Inheritance is a crucial aspect of ownership.

We’d like to think that people would overcome these issues, but that’s not really human nature, and there is no sense pretending it is. Indeed, I told my landlord after that massive landscaping project that I would never be doing anything like that again. Why should I?

The more one considers oneself to be worthy of being a noble “house,” the more important the notion of owning property becomes. Yes, you are still sovereign in a rented place, but your enjoyment is somewhat curtailed by the fact that it’s not owned by you. And all of this rises in importance as one becomes a family, families expand into extended families, and new houses are formed thence. A house should have land. Even just a tiny piece, so long as it is owned.

Property ownership creates a sense of stability, future-orientation, and legacy. All of these are correlated with success. And we of the distributed nation intend to succeed. To build. To thrive. To outlast the involuntary state and blaze a trail to a better future.

Ownership makes us stronger, so we should do it if we can.

---

Help keep this train rolling!