property as a concept

In a recent post, I said the Temple Mount has no dollar value if the only people who want it (group A) have no interest in buying or selling. But if someone else (group B) wants to buy it, that creates a trading value. B creates the value, so B owns that value. A opposes the very idea of trade, so they cannot be said to create any trading value - they actively oppose it! This may sound perverse, so let's look at it another way.

Land ownership: what is actually owned?
If nobody created a thing (e.g. land), that thing is nobody's property. But we can create agreements, whereby one person has exclusive use of that thing. To all intents and purposes we can say they "own" it, but in fact what they really "own" is our trust that they are the best people to use the thing. The different parties to the agreement (owner, neighbors, police, etc.) all create the arrangement and so its results are their property, depending on their input. Anyone who opposes agreements and tries to maintain ownership by violence just creates problems, and is responsible for the costs of those problems.

Why we cannot have land rent on private property
Back to the Temple Mount. Group 'B' created its market value, and are thus owed land rent. But what if we apply the same logic to a building that group 'A' created? If group 'A' does not want to sell, and group 'B' gives it a price, then group 'B' has again created a market value. But let us look at the wider picture. To give group 'B' its rent, society must enforce a market against the will of 'A.' This act has consequences.

Enforcing a market in land is a GOOD THING. Why? If nobody created something (e.g. land) we maximize its efficient use by enforcing competition. But enforcing a market in created goods - against the owner's will - is a BAD THING. Why? We might maximize its efficient use, but we discourage people from creating any more. In other words, we have created negative wealth. The whole reason for property is to encourage the creation of wealth. Hence property implies land rent on uncreated goods, but not taxation of created goods.

If we accept the principle that we are responsible for what we create, then everything else falls into place.