Tax reform

[Gard]

This is what I meant to say (third time is a charm, I hope):
Hi... the trouble with Locke's Proviso is twofold. First, it is a non-starter, because he does not define his terms. He does not say what is "enough", and he does not define what is "good" land to be left to others. His is a tautology, because such terms can only be defined subjectively, excluding any objective valuation of the supposed commons. His remarks inevitably lead one back to the need for some kind of market process, whereby the multitudinous subjective valuations of the uses and needs for land can be exercised through competition for recourses. While Locke's political tracts are valuable, they fell short on economic terms. The French Physiocrats began exploring this in the 18th Century, and did a remarkable job realizing that in inter-personal relations, it was inevitable that prices and rents would be applied to anything holding value to people. Even if one were to try to keep land in a "common state" it would be impossible because of the various interests of people. It is either going to be held by government, under the auspices of "the commons", and thus will be subject to all the stresses and debates over the many uses to which many people want it to be put, or it will be allowed to be held privately, and will reflect its value through the market mechanism. Locke tenaciously held to a philosophical non-starter, even if one were to remove the economic point of view. If, as he believed, the application of one's God given abilities to his labor invested it with value and brought it in line to being one's property, then how does one separate physical items from the abstract? Land, water, metals, wood, grass to feed animals, produce, the tools which are used to make other items, all derive themselves from an origin in the land, perse. To negate ownership concepts in land itself is to negate the idea of ownership of any commodity or item that is derived from that land -- ie, everything physical. To negate ownership of land would also negate the ability to utilize one's mind when applying his skills to the land. This would mean a negation of the very God-given abilities Locke believed we had a right to exercise. Hence, a tautology.

Now, the other issue to explore is the fact that under a "commons" paradigm, rents cannot be determined. If rents cannot be applied to land, in other words, if present and future values cannot be determined, then there can be no use for the land that works in conjunction with improving the lives of those involved in the market. All calculation processes are halted, and economic productivity is stifled. Lives are hurt, and society does not develop.

Locke's belief in the commons, as based on his transition out of the "State of Nature", is incompatable with human nature. Ahh, if only he'd met Frederic Bastiat!

[AlanM]

Thanks again, Gard. Nicely done. I am not particularly good at expressing myself concerning philosophy and economic theory. Partly because I am not a typist, I tend to look for brief, succinct answers, often without success.

[Kat Kanning]

that is why shifting taxes off of buildings and onto land values is so compelling.

Shifting taxes off of buildings onto nothing is what is compelling.

[BillG]

First, it is a non-starter, because he does not define his terms. He does not say what is "enough", and he does not define what is "good" land to be left to others. His is a tautology, because such terms can only be defined subjectively, excluding any objective valuation of the supposed commons. His remarks inevitably lead one back to the need for some kind of market process, whereby the multitudinous subjective valuations of the uses and needs for land can be exercised through competition for recourses.

no, au contraire, the reason his proviso is so brilliant, is exactly because he does not define "enough and as good left for others" and rather leaves it to the vagaries of the subjective market valuations.

if economic rent attaches to any location then there is not "enough and as good left for others"...why would I pay rent to someone to occupy their location if I could subjectively get the same quality and quantity of land for free?

what could be more simple?

While Locke's political tracts are valuable...

I would be interested in your opinion of how.

The French Physiocrats began exploring this in the 18th Century, and did a remarkable job realizing that in inter-personal relations, it was inevitable that prices and rents would be applied to anything holding value to people. Even if one were to try to keep land in a "common state" it would be impossible because of the various interests of people. It is either going to be held by government, under the auspices of "the commons", and thus will be subject to all the stresses and debates over the many uses to which many people want it to be put, or it will be allowed to be held privately, and will reflect its value through the market mechanism

the state's only legitimate role regarding the commons is to insure that everyone's equal access rights to the natural benefits/opportunities are protected...one need not ask for permission to use or ask how you may use.

the French Physiocrats actually support my position...thank you very much for the reference

please see: "produit net" or social surplus as the only legitimate source of public revenue from land values.

please see: "l'impot unique" or single tax - land value taxation

please see: "Agrarian Justice" by Thomas Paine and his citizens dividend

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/physioc.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/az/physiocrat/

If, as he believed, the application of one's God given abilities to his labor invested it with value and brought it in line to being one's property, then how does one separate physical items from the abstract? Land, water, metals, wood, grass to feed animals, produce, the tools which are used to make other items, all derive themselves from an origin in the land, perse.

easily...if the items that are being enclosed from the commons has economic rent attached to it prior to any exertion of human labor then pay the economic rent directly to those being excluded the amount they are economically harmed by your exclusive use and then the item is transformed into private property without any more societal obligations.

To negate ownership concepts in land itself is to negate the idea of ownership of any commodity or item that is derived from that land -- ie, everything physical. To negate ownership of land would also negate the ability to utilize one's mind when applying his skills to the land. This would mean a negation of the very God-given abilities Locke believed we had a right to exercise. Hence, a tautology.

the land is already owned prior to exertion - in common.

this is an inalienable, INDIVIDUAL ownership right only constrained by everyone else's equal right to the same.

if no economic rent attaches to the land - as people compete for access in order to try and attain a perceived economic advantage - then there is no obligation to compensate.

the problem occurs when no compensation is voluntarily rendered because then the property rights of those excluded are being VIOLATED as the economic rent can only come out of the fruits of their labor so the landowner, acting like a government, has a perpetual claim on the tenant's property under scarce conditions.

as I have said before, under a situation like we have today where all lands are legally claimed (although not all occupied) the economic rent naturally appears as people compete for access so there are only two choices at this point:

1. the excluded pay the economic rent or "tax" and their rights to the fruits of their labor are violated
2. the privileged pay the economic rent or "tax" and the rights to the fruits of their labor are upheld

#1 decreases overall liberty while #2 enhanced overall liberty.

which do you choose?

the other issue to explore is the fact that under a "commons" paradigm, rents cannot be determined. If rents cannot be applied to land, in other words, if present and future values cannot be determined, then there can be no use for the land that works in conjunction with improving the lives of those involved in the market. All calculation processes are halted, and economic productivity is stifled. Lives are hurt, and society does not develop.

of course economic rent can be determined - the market does this very nicely thank you very much.

if your claim that all economic productivity is stifled istrue how do you explain Hong Kong where no land is actually owned (everyone pays land rent) yet they consistently rank at the top of the Forbes economic freedom index?

it proves that the ownership of the land per se is not the salient issue but rather the security of knowing that the fruits of your labor on the land are protected.

in our current land tenure system this is not the case for those excluded and I understand this is counter intuitive but overall liberty increases with a land value taxation system.

Locke's belief in the commons, as based on his transition out of the "State of Nature", is incompatable with human nature

I disagree as I have shown by the fallacy in your logic.

[BillG]

that is why shifting taxes off of buildings and onto land values is so compelling.

Shifting taxes off of buildings onto nothing is what is compelling.

it is not possible to eliminate the economic rent for land.

the only choice is to decide who should pay it and who should receive it.

if the excluded pay it and the entitled receive it - overall liberty suffers...
if the entitled pay it and the excluded receive it - overall liberty is enhanced...

[AlanM]

it is not possible to eliminate the economic rent for land.

the only choice is to decide who should pay it and who should receive it.

if the excluded pay it and the entitled receive it - overall liberty suffers...
if the entitled pay it and the excluded receive it - overall liberty is enhanced...

This is your view. IMO, liberty is not a free ride. Freedom to earn my way is my choice.

[BillG]

it is not possible to eliminate the economic rent for land.

the only choice is to decide who should pay it and who should receive it.

if the excluded pay it and the entitled receive it - overall liberty suffers...
if the entitled pay it and the excluded receive it - overall liberty is enhanced...

This is your view. IMO, liberty is not a free ride. Freedom to earn my way is my choice.

apparently in your mind it is a free ride for the entitled but not the excluded...

I thought you said the right of self-ownership is not a right if it has to be purchased?

[BillG]

Freedom to earn my way is my choice

besides, is there really a choice if by saying "no" you may die?

[AlanM]

it is not possible to eliminate the economic rent for land.

the only choice is to decide who should pay it and who should receive it.

if the excluded pay it and the entitled receive it - overall liberty suffers...
if the entitled pay it and the excluded receive it - overall liberty is enhanced...

This is your view. IMO, liberty is not a free ride. Freedom to earn my way is my choice.

apparently in your mind it is a free ride for the entitled but not the excluded...

I thought you said the right of self-ownership is not a right if it has to be purchased?

I own myself, my ownership of myself can never be taken from me. You are the one who is conditioning ownership.
If I purchase property, I own the property and the vested property rights.
Self-ownership and property ownership are two distinct things.

[BillG]

Self-ownership and property ownership are two distinct things.

no infact self-ownership is the basis of property ownership as in the fruits of one's labor where the commons are transformed via labor and capital into wealth...

http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/macgregor/macgregor2.html

excerpt:
So a natural consequence of owning your own life, is owning that which your life creates, or trades with others--property.

There can be no such thing as self-ownership, if there is no property. One automatically leads to the other. Self ownership implies a proprietary interest in your own life and the material results of your life's actions.

[AlanM]

Self-ownership and property ownership are two distinct things.

no infact self-ownership is the basis of property ownership as in the fruits of one's labor where the commons are transformed via labor and capital into wealth...

http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/macgregor/macgregor2.html

excerpt:
So a natural consequence of owning your own life, is owning that which your life creates, or trades with others--property.

There can be no such thing as self-ownership, if there is no property. One automatically leads to the other. Self ownership implies a proprietary interest in your own life and the material results of your life's actions.

Because you can find a quote that states a thesis does not make it a fact. Philosophy is a belief system. I don't believe in your system.
I am myself. I own myself. No one owns me. I do not require property to be me. Do I need somewhere to live? Yes, but it is a place that I EARN. I repeat, there is no free lunch. Every animal, humans included, earn there daily food, their sustenance. Earn, Hankster, not have it taken from their neighbor. Taking from one, to give to another, is theft. Nothing more, nothing less.

[BillG]

I am myself. I own myself. No one owns me. I do not require property to be me. Do I need somewhere to live? Yes, but it is a place that I EARN. I repeat, there is no free lunch. Every animal, humans included, earn there daily food, their sustenance. Earn, Hankster, not have it taken from their neighbor. Taking from one, to give to another, is theft. Nothing more, nothing less

are you seriously trying to make a logical arguement that by being alive (I am myself) you are not occupying a location (I do not require property to be me) and that having to pay a tribute to someone for a location (no one owns me) is not a denial of the right of self-ownership?

especially in light of the fact that in order to continue to be alive you need to engage in self-generating activity to provide your sustenance which can only come via direct access to the earth itself.

whereas if you had direct access without having to pay a tribute you could attempt to sustain yourself.

what is the direct access equivalent - sharing the economic rent!

and without direct access you only have the fruits of your labor to sell (your property) which the entitled has a perpetual claim on - via an exclusive right of ownership backed by state force over a specific location - because as you agreed all lands are legally claimed and scarcity plus increasing demand leads to economic rent.

so how is a landlowner any different than a government in it's dominion over a specific location?

the entitled are taking from the excluded and it is anti-liberty!

[AlanM]

are you seriously trying to make a logical arguement that by being alive (I am myself) you are not occupying a location (I do not require property to be me) and that having to pay a tribute to someone for a location (no one owns me) is not a denial of the right of self-ownership?

That's right, Hankster. My mother paid a price when I was born. My parents paid a price in raising me. I am paying the price since I left the roost.

especially in light of the fact that in order to continue to be alive you need to engage in self-generating activity to provide your sustenance which can only come via direct access to the earth itself.

I repeat, there is no free lunch. You earn what you use/consume.

whereas if you had direct access without having to pay a tribute you could attempt to sustain yourself.

what is the direct access equivalent - sharing the economic rent!

and without direct access you only have the fruits of your labor to sell (your property) which the entitled has a perpetual claim on - via an exclusive right of ownership backed by state force over a specific location - because as you agreed all lands are legally claimed and scarcity plus increasing demand leads to economic rent.

Sharing? You me TAKING. Taking is theft, Hankster old buddy. If someone receives, someone has to give. Forcing someone to give is theft.

so how is a landlowner any different than a government in it's dominion over a specific location?

the entitled are taking from the excluded and it is anti-liberty!

A landowner has dominion only over that which he has bought. The choice of whether to buy, or not buy, is up to the individual.