Reason Magazine: In Defense of Slums

I kind of gagged a little when I read the title of this article. Okay, so he is not really "defending slums" but instead comparing them to their economically worse off counterpart - rural countrysides.

But still. The fact that slums are better than the country side and rural areas really only tells us one thing: that the whole country is poor and miserable. Reason should be focusing on how to make slums better places to live - or how to make them disappear - with property rights and sensible limited government policy, not defending them as wonderful enclaves that the poor masses enjoy.

I was struck by a comment on the page, however:

""the conurbations made up of people who do not legally occupy the land they live on—more commonly known as slums""

Illegally occupying land isn't a violation of someone elses's property rights?

What, these cities have never heard of emminant domain? Once they become slums, you need to bulldoze it down and and bring in the real growth. What's the property value of a slum? Isn't a slum pretty much the defintion of urban blight? Bulldoze it, build high rise commercial buildings that will create jobs.

""If there were much hope for a decent life in the countryside of impoverished countries, people would happily live there. Instead, they realize that if they want to make a decent living, heading to the city is their best bet.""

You mean head to the city and illegally squat? While they are at it, they might make a living at picking pockets. If you have to break one law in the name of better living, why not break two?

Would a libertarian argument be against slums?

My response: Illegally sitting on someone else's land is "anti-libertarian." But in slums, the situation is different because the government has made is almost impossible to legally get land. In this case, it is the state's responsibility to reduce barriers to legally obtaining title to land.

The "libertarian" answer would be:
1. Make property rights well-defined. The law must clearly state that property is yours with title and that means you can sell, lease, rent, whatever you want with it.
2. Remove the numerous regulations to obtaining legal title to land. Most slumdwellers and squatters want to own their land, but they cannot get legal title - either it is publicly held and the process to acquire it legally is near impossible, or it is unknown who the land belongs to because of ill-defined property rights systems to begin with.
3. Actually ENFORCE the law (a lot of people technically own property but its not protected in practice). Make sure that the informal "rules in use" are the laws on the books.

Doing this will result in several things:
1. Use of land/property as collateral to get loans. It is a source of capital.
2. It is a potential source of revenue - you can rent out land.
3. Strengthens women against domestic abuse - if she owns land, she is more likely to leave a abusive partner because she can support herself. She also becomes a key decision-maker in the home because she has access to capital.
4. Reduces violent conflict - property disputes can be easily solved.
5. And scores of other positive benefits come from property rights.