I was wondering what the trick is, as selling a place without holding its title may not command a very high price, even if you clear it and make it ready for business - for cattle ranching in the case of the rainforest.
Turns out it's similar to the concept of adverse occupation:
> Another factor driving the illegal land market is the expectation of amnesty.
> Mr Alves revealed he was working with others to lobby politicians to help them legally own stolen land.
> A common strategy is to deforest the land and then plead with politicians to abolish its protected status, on the basis it no longer serves its original purpose.
> The land grabbers can then officially buy the plots from the government, thereby legalising their claims.
If the government didn't do that, it wouldn't happen! It's a system of wrong incentives: the executive and the judiciary should be as separate as possible!
> For its part, Facebook claims trying to deduce which sales are illegal would be too complex a task for it to carry out itself, and should be left to the local judiciary and other authorities
If property rights were more clearly defined, it wouldn't happen either.
I see that as a compelling case for defining property rights outside of the government greasy finger reach - maybe a blockchain based register, so land grab attempts clearly stand out, and can be used in name and shame of the land thieves.
You don't call anyone. You just publish their picture, name, phone number, and address.
If they have done nothing wrong acquiring plots of jungle, they certainly have nothing to fear!!
On the other hand, if the blockchain can show conclusively some ex-post reassignment of property rights, and whose corrupt official were responsible, maybe some heads will roll (and I mean that quite literally in South America!)
Turns out it's similar to the concept of adverse occupation:
> Another factor driving the illegal land market is the expectation of amnesty.
> Mr Alves revealed he was working with others to lobby politicians to help them legally own stolen land.
> A common strategy is to deforest the land and then plead with politicians to abolish its protected status, on the basis it no longer serves its original purpose.
> The land grabbers can then officially buy the plots from the government, thereby legalising their claims.
If the government didn't do that, it wouldn't happen! It's a system of wrong incentives: the executive and the judiciary should be as separate as possible!
> For its part, Facebook claims trying to deduce which sales are illegal would be too complex a task for it to carry out itself, and should be left to the local judiciary and other authorities
If property rights were more clearly defined, it wouldn't happen either.
I see that as a compelling case for defining property rights outside of the government greasy finger reach - maybe a blockchain based register, so land grab attempts clearly stand out, and can be used in name and shame of the land thieves.