Reader's letter of the day

From today's FT:

Sir, Bravo Samuel Brittan for the masterly study, A catechism for a system that endures, (May 1), highlighting Jane Austen’s certitude in property title with the caveat of concomitant obligations. Even Lady Thatcher recognised that in relation to the earth and its resources we are but trustees...

The obligation aspect of property rights was well observed by Austen, for its absence feeds injustice. All wealth is produced by work applied to land*, in its various forms, yet if some person or institution successfully, but incorrectly, stakes the claim that such land is a possession-absolute by the rule of first past the post, it gives an unfair accretion to their share of the subsequent output, in perpetuity.

This surely is the nub of the issue for the future of capitalism – how can we ensure the equitable redistribution of wealth?

Arnold J Harper, London SW19, UK.

* In a modern context, it is vital to distinguish from the additional value that e.g. a farmer adds to his own land through drainage, cultivation, walls etc which belongs to the farmer, of course, and the value of any other land which is pure 'location value' or 'bubble value', which is entirely down to the efforts of third parties in building railway stations, roads, shops, or keeping the streets safe and clean, which is why Adam Smith thought location values in towns and cities ("ground rents") were fair game for taxation but not farmland ("the ordinary rent of land").