I was doing this essay for extra credit and i kinda stumbled and coulndt find anything on google or anything of sort, so i decided i'd ask for help where the geniusses gather; right here on baut!

Well we were talking about privatization and all on how first people claimed land, plots, the water, then air, and now space (example moon). so the essay question is:

Why is something valuable only when you put a fence around it?
Why is something more valuable when you own it?

I thought because it adds personal value. You can have more glory and pride over it. It is the reward of getting something that you worked hard for in a capitalist society.

P.S: The class this assignment is due for is 'Corporate America'

How about because you have exclusive use of it? Taking the land (or whatever) out of the public domain reduces the availability of that resource to other people, which makes it more valuable to them. Basic economics.

__________________
"It's turtles all the way down."

Makes sense, nice point. Exclusive rights........don't see anything wrong with that. Thanks

Anyone have more ideas?

I won't give you an answer, but I'll give you something to think about:

What is the better course of action: to covet someone else's property, or to protect your own?

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

I would put forth the age-old standby of supply and demand as more influential than any other effect, other than sentimental value; i.e. - even owning the only one of something would only have sentimental value (as opposed to market value) if nobody else wanted it.

Not surprised you couldn't find anything directly related to the questions. They are kinda wierd questions. Both seem to imply something I would not agree with, at least not as being universally applicable. I'm saying that putting a fence around something does not automatically makes it worth more (doggie do-do would be an extreme example). Same goes for owning something (the same extreme example applies).

I'm guessing this is for a composition or English class; not for econ.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

No this is for Corporate America. The lecture i received before been given this assignment was this:

=-=-=-=-=-Gather Round' Children And Listen To My Tale-=-=-=--=

10 thousands of year ago man walked the earth that all shared (gatherers).

Then one man (no one in particluar) stopped and took a seed and grew it. He soon grew a small field and claimed that land as his own. Once that man began growing food, he was stuck there because it was his and he was stuck (the idea was when you start you are stuck).

Then one day another gatherer came and started to harvest the field. The 'owner' of that land threw a rock at the intruder. then the next day the intruder came back with a friend and a two sticks. than the next day the owner also brought a friend had a sword, then they had guns, then armies, then that soon led to building farms, then cities, and then countries.

The point is that all bussiness are extracted to protect that one seed 10,000 yeas ago.

Land used to be free then people began to own land, they owned lots (homes), then water (international waters), next air (international airspace), and now space (the moon, U.S).

I know the answer.
How much will you pay me to tell you?
John

I can pay you with the greatest valued thing of all.........my appreciation c'mon im just a kid lol, you dont necessarily have to tell me the exact answer (but i'd appreciate greatly) but if you would help me arrive to the answer, id be content

OK then, so it sounds like a discussion on the foundation of property rights; how land came to be owned and why people have a right to own it. (I still think the questions are wierd; as they insinuate a claim I say is false - but then I had a reputation for being too literal and argued, I mean debated, stuff like this with my profs all the time).

It occurs to me that property ownership is purely a societal norm based on the living conditions and means of livelihood of any given culture. A nomadic/wanderer group may not recognize any human right to own property at all, a hunter/gatherer group might recognize the right to own land as a group, and the farmers/settlers recognize the right of individuals to personally own a piece of Earth.

I'd say the biggest clash is likely when people from the different groups run into each other. When like groups meet, such as 2 nomads or 2 farmers, they have an agreed upon set of rules to go by. They might not agree, possibly to the point of going to war, but they have the same agreed upon concept of property ownership. But when a nomad meets a farmer, a fundamental discord is exposed.

The story you were given sounds like an attempt to describe the first time such a discord occured; perhaps the first time a farmer (who's law is that I planted the crop therefore it is mine) had his crop stolen by a nomad (who's law is I found the crop therefore it is mine).

I think the key to why the land was valuable is because someone had an investment in it - the planted crop. The farmer and the nomad see it as being equally valuable, but the farmer sees it as his own and the nomad sees it as anybody's for the taking. And so improvement to the land (or even potential improvement to the land) seems to be the key to it's value.

I don't think who in particualr owns it, or having a fence around it makes any difference in the value (other than the fence as a physical improvement - and therefore an investment - in the property).

Not sure I answered the question of why we have the right to own land to begin with, but the idea that a person or group would invest in the value of property by planting a crop or building a structure without being guaranteed continued and ongoing use (enjoying the fruits of their labor) would strike most people nowadays as not very logical.

So, yes; we own land because it allows for a stable environment in which to invest, improve, and lead to fun things like ski resorts, subdivisions, and Dairy Queens. All owed to and dependent on the person who planted the first garden.

Ta-Da!

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Amazing. You present very great points and i GREALY appreciate your effort and work. I will be sure to include many of your points in my paper, I'll be sureto include u in my works cited page!

as for the fence, i think that is an insignificant detail that is just supposed to show ownership or belonging/ private.