The claim that government-controlled land is actually unowned—and thus not properly subject to government rulemaking—would lead to consequences that reasonable people would find abhorrent. Therefore, in the U.S. case, such land should be regarded as owned by Americans with the government as their representative. While privatization is the best course, it is unlikely to occur anytime soon. In the meantime, the government should make policy as though it were a private owner or the agent of private owners. For example, if the politicians think that private owners would want to restrict immigration, that is, keep them off the land, the politicians should do that.

Is government-held land owned or unowned? It is not a simple question. As Simon Guenzl reminds us, some of that land was obtained from its rightful owners by force through eminent domain. Those owners or their heirs could probably be identified. But much government-held land was obtained not by theft but through preemption. Since the government forbade and continues to forbid homesteading, the land has never had private owners. Hence, no owners could be identified. (The complicated matter of the Indians must be reserved for another day.) Guenzl thus distinguishes between state-claimed land and state-seized land.

Stolen land should not be regarded as unowned; it was taken from its owners. The government took it by force (even if it paid some cash), and now it is owned (controlled) by the government—but illegitimately.

What about the never-owned land? Is it unowned? Control is at the core of ownership. The government controls the land. Therefore, it makes more sense to regard it as illegitimately owned rather than as unowned. (How to privatize state-held land is not today's topic.)

Reasonable people will agree that the consequences of treating government-held land as unowned would be substantially negative. The homeless, drug-soaked, unsanitary encampments on public parks and sidewalks have degraded life in some "progressive" big cities. Responsible, self-supporting individuals and their families can't simply walk to shops and enjoy other amenities. That should not stand. Protest demonstrations have sometimes blocked major roads, impeding ambulances and the normal conduct of life.

We may thus regard the unowned status of government-held land as seriously problematic, and I am happy to reject it. The question, then, is: having rejected that status, must we prefer that the government make policy as though it were the private owner?

I'm not sure what that means, but I can't see how it would be possible under any interpretation. Sometimes it's said to mean that the government ought to act on behalf of the true private owners. "How would private owners want the land to be used?" I've already shown that much of the land never had owners. The state would have to imagine how private owners, had they existed, would have wanted the land to be used. But how can politicians and bureaucrats know that? Maybe those imaginary owners wouldn't want schools or libraries on their land.

With government-seized land, a similar problem would confront the policymakers. Moreover, why assume that all the dispossessed owners (if alive) would want the same thing? The socialist-calculation problem is relevant here. People don't really know what they will do until they confront alternatives, prices, and opportunity costs of particular circumstances. How arrogant for the politicians to presume to know what hypothetical people would want! How realistic is "the collectivist notion of the state [making policy] that emulates the market decisions and choices of the taxpayers?" Walter Block and Anthony Gregory write. Not very, I say.