Philosophy

[EthanAllen]

It doesn't seem to me that you can have *both* an absolute right to land and an absolute right to one's labor. If you think about it, one definition of land property might be "a boundary within which only a particular owner or owners may make use of the land".  By definition, that would infringe on others' use of that land. Once all land is owned in that way, then there becomes a large class of people who are completely excluded from any use of land at all, and thus have absolutely no right to their own labor. So it seems to me that you can either acknowledge absolute ownership of labor (so long as you don't infringe on another's labor), or absolute ownership of land (so long as you don't infringe on another's land). But not both.

By George you've got it Caleb!

Either law-based property (privilege) has to be subordinated to labor-based property (via an obligation) to those being excluded or the other way around. One leads to a condition of the greatest amount of equal liberty for the greatest number of people and the other leads to servitude.

[CaveDog]

How can you miss not seeing a difference between a belief ("believing an action against it harmful") and an instinct where there is no reasoning capabilities (sentience) present in all creatures but humans?

Ah. But we're speaking of the laws of nature, not the laws of man derived from reason. Natural law is primarily derived from observing nature in order to derive it's intent, therefore instinct is relevant. I'll concede that "belief" may not be the most appropriate term, "Observe" may be more accurate, but the principle is that upon perceiving a threat most creatures, human or animal will act in self preservation. Since nature, through reason or instinct, provides this capacity to resist we can't assume that it's intent is for might to automatically make right.

We only deem humans worthy of rights because they are suppose to have reasoning skills.

Not exactly. We deem humans worthy of rights because the intent of nature is presumed to pre-exist and therefore transcend human society, therefore human society does not have the moral authority to override the rights which nature delegates to the individual.

[JohninRI]

It doesn't seem to me that you can have *both* an absolute right to land and an absolute right to one's labor. If you think about it, one definition of land property might be "a boundary within which only a particular owner or owners may make use of the land".  By definition, that would infringe on others' use of that land. Once all land is owned in that way, then there becomes a large class of people who are completely excluded from any use of land at all, and thus have absolutely no right to their own labor. So it seems to me that you can either acknowledge absolute ownership of labor (so long as you don't infringe on another's labor), or absolute ownership of land (so long as you don't infringe on another's land). But not both.

Caleb, Maybe we should start thinking in terms of being stewards only.  If there is a Creator, then it is all his.  Our labor is all that we have of our own. 

Around the turn of the 20th Century a man named Henry George advocated a Single Tax on the land we possessed without a tax on the improvements made with our own labor.  The more land a man possessed the greater his tax.  Furthermore, since there is a finite amount of land within a certain jurisdiction, any costs on the group would be apportioned according to the whole of the land without improvements.  Open land would be taxed as mansions.  The movement got quite a lot of press for a while but fizzled out.  I'm not sure what I think of it.

[d_goddard]

You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now
and you're not so big!
http://www.anysonglyrics.com/lyrics/t/theymightbegiants/boss.htm

[Braddogg]

That song was ruined for me by being the theme song of Malcolm in the Middle.

[EthanAllen]

How can you miss not seeing a difference between a belief ("believing an action against it harmful") and an instinct where there is no reasoning capabilities (sentience) present in all creatures but humans?

Ah. But we're speaking of the laws of nature, not the laws of man derived from reason. Natural law is primarily derived from observing nature in order to derive it's intent, therefore instinct is relevant. I'll concede that "belief" may not be the most appropriate term, "Observe" may be more accurate, but the principle is that upon perceiving a threat most creatures, human or animal will act in self preservation. Since nature, through reason or instinct, provides this capacity to resist we can't assume that it's intent is for might to automatically make right.

We only deem humans worthy of rights because they are suppose to have reasoning skills.

Not exactly. We deem humans worthy of rights because the intent of nature is presumed to pre-exist and therefore transcend human society, therefore human society does not have the moral authority to override the rights which nature delegates to the individual.

"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions...."

[Caleb]

It doesn't seem to me that you can have *both* an absolute right to land and an absolute right to one's labor. If you think about it, one definition of land property might be "a boundary within which only a particular owner or owners may make use of the land".  By definition, that would infringe on others' use of that land. Once all land is owned in that way, then there becomes a large class of people who are completely excluded from any use of land at all, and thus have absolutely no right to their own labor. So it seems to me that you can either acknowledge absolute ownership of labor (so long as you don't infringe on another's labor), or absolute ownership of land (so long as you don't infringe on another's land). But not both.

Caleb, Maybe we should start thinking in terms of being stewards only.  If there is a Creator, then it is all his.  Our labor is all that we have of our own. 

Around the turn of the 20th Century a man named Henry George advocated a Single Tax on the land we possessed without a tax on the improvements made with our own labor.  The more land a man possessed the greater his tax.  Furthermore, since there is a finite amount of land within a certain jurisdiction, any costs on the group would be apportioned according to the whole of the land without improvements.  Open land would be taxed as mansions.  The movement got quite a lot of press for a while but fizzled out.  I'm not sure what I think of it.

I do think in terms of stewardship, not absolute ownership, as I am a Christian.

That having been said, I think the Georgists are misguided.  If, as they admit, I have a natural right to use land, then by what pretext can they tax me for using it?  Taxation, in any form, is theft.

[EthanAllen]

If, as they admit, I have a natural right to use land, then by what pretext can they tax me for using it?

You only have an equal right to the use of land. Your exclusive use then infringes upon the equal right of others to occupy the same location as it forces costs upon the excluded that violates their absolute right of self-ownership. Because exclusive use is necessary to avoid conflict, enhance the common good, and two people can not exist in the same place at the same time - the sensible thing to do is to require an obligation where necessary (the appearance of economic rent) in exchange for exclusive use.

Taxation, in any form, is theft.

Requiring the sharing of economic rent with those you exclude prevents a theft of their labor-based wealth which violates their absolute right of self-ownership.

The same can not be said for the landowner because by definition the unimproved land has no labor inputs from the landowner, therefore their absolute right of self-ownership is not violated.

[CaveDog]

"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions...."

While I agree with Locke on most points, I disagree that reason and natural law are one and the same. If that were the case then our reason would conform so precisely to natural law that there would be no need to debate it's existence in the first place. It would merely be an intrinsic part of our being from which we are incapable of departing. As it is, we depart from it regularly.

I accept Locke more because I agree that we can discover natural law through reason, but the two are no more one and the same than the scientific methods used to discover the laws of physics are the laws of physics in and of themselves.

[EthanAllen]

The two aspects of human nature that the classical liberal philosopher John Locke used to derive his natural law are independence and equality. This natural moral law is formulated by rules that make up a universal ethic (across cultures) where the ethic assigns the moral values of good, evil, and neutral to all human acts.

The premise of independence, that all persons think and feel independently, implies that values are ultimately subjective, coming from individual desires and feelings while the premise of human equality gives these values an equal status. The universal ethic's rule for moral goodness is that acts which are welcomed benefits to others are morally good while the rule for evil is:

a. An offense that exists within the subject's mind
b. An invasion into the person's body and possessions

For the universal ethic, only unwelcomed invasions are evil, while mere offenses are morally neutral. Acts which only affect yourself are either neutral or good, but not evil, since there is no invasion into another's domain.

Thus there are three basic rules of the universal ethic:

   1. Acts are good if and only if they are welcomed benefits.
   2. Acts are evil if they coercively harm others as invasions.
   3. All other acts are neutral.

A society has complete liberty or freedom if its laws prohibit and punish evil as prescribed by the universal ethic, and if any act which is good or neutral is allowed but not required. We have the right to do anything that does not coercively harm others, and the right to be free from coercive harm.

We also have a property right to our own bodies and lives, since if some control others, this violates the premise of equality and becomes an invasion. This self-ownership right implies a property right to our labor and the products of our labor as the natural extension of self but self-ownership does not extend to what labor does not produce: natural resources.

The premise of equality implies that all persons have an equal property right to the benefits and natural opportunities afforded by nature other than our own bodies. These benefits are manifested in the rent that folks bid to use nature so equality can only be satisfied if communities share the economic rents due to nature equally and directly amongst neighbors in the form of a citizens dividend.

The universal ethic therefore prescribes a fiscal policy of public and community revenue from economic rent due from community investments (as opposed to those afforded by nature which require the direct and equal sharing of economic rent to uphold the absolute right of self-ownership of those excluded by privilege) along with voluntary user fees. If the community investments and voluntary user fees diverge too widely to suit a particular individual, then they are to be free to join another community and shape it more to their liking.

The taxation of labor and produced goods is an invasion into what properly belongs to the producers.

For social policy and civil liberties, the universal ethic prescribes that there should be no law where there is no victim of an invasion, thus no victimless crimes. Everyone should be free to do what she or he wants so long as they do not coercively harm others which also means no restriction on honest and peaceful enterprise.

This implies true free trade: no barriers of any kind.

The universal ethic provides the general framework that can be applied to any particular topic, leaving scope for judgment and circumstances. This framework enables our widely differing cultures to live together in social harmony.

The best way to implement the universal ethic for social justice is to make it a permanent part of a country's constitution, along with a decentralized political organization that lets the people rather than moneyed elites control the governance and policy.

Only when much of humanity recognizes the existence of the universal ethic and applies it to personal and social life will there be universal justice, peace, and harmony.

[Caleb]

You only have an equal right to the use of land. Your exclusive use then infringes upon the equal right of others to occupy the same location as it forces costs upon the excluded that violates their absolute right of self-ownership.

This doesn't make sense. All of our rights are equal rights shared with others. I don't see how the right to use land is any different.

The bottom line is that if I am leaving enough for others (using less than my fair share) than I am *not* excluding others. Someone else is (the person who uses more.)  The person who uses more than his fair share ought to pay rent, but not a tax. The rent would be paid to the individual who is yielding his share. Not as a general tax that goes into some general fund. This seems like government to me.

Georgist schemes seem, to me, to be an attempt to maintain the status quo, the present system, rather than fundamentally changing it. I still have no idea who is going to determine improved land values for taxation purposes. You can say "the market", but that makes no sense. The Market doesn't actually assign a dollar value until an exchange takes place. For someone to assign "market value" to a piece of property for purposes of taxation, an individual must make some sort of assessment. And who will collect your georgist taxes in an anarchist system?

[EthanAllen]

The bottom line is that if I am leaving enough for others (using less than my fair share) than I am *not* excluding others.

By definition, if the location you are occupying at anytime has any unimproved value attached to it then you are not leaving "enough and as good in common for others". This can change over time too as the population increases.

The person who uses more than his fair share ought to pay rent, but not a tax. The rent would be paid to the individual who is yielding his share. Not as a general tax that goes into some general fund. This seems like government to me.

I agree and have never advocated otherwise.

I still have no idea who is going to determine improved land values for taxation purposes. You can say "the market", but that makes no sense. The Market doesn't actually assign a dollar value until an exchange takes place. For someone to assign "market value" to a piece of property for purposes of taxation, an individual must make some sort of assessment.

You are confusing price with value the same way folks confuse personal utility value with market value. Sales prices are used to determine market value. The more data points the more accurate. Market value is determined for the benefit of those who are being excluded as they are determining the extent to which they are being economically harmed from being kept from the natural opportunities nature affords equal access to all by others exclusive use.

This seems like government to me.

And who will collect your georgist taxes in an anarchist system?

There is some confusion over the terms anarchy, government and state.

Anarchy is more than just the rejection of the state as illegitimate authority. Anarchists reject all illegitimate authority in whatever for it takes.

Nock defines the state as an institution that hands out privileges without any obligations to those being excluded from what is rightfully theirs to access/use. Local governance as legitimate authority is narrowly constituted to uphold the absolute right of self-ownership - life, liberty and labor-based property. It is a just use of force to require an obligation to those who are being excluded via privilege because exclusive use without it FORCES an obligation on the excluded which compels them to labor. The same can't be said of the landowner because by definition they contribute no labor towards the creation of the unimproved land value - their self-ownership remains intact.

This is Jeffersonian anarchy.

[Sam Adams]

I don't see any way of getting around historical facts. Land, and land use, have always been a matter of who took the land by force. This even includes nomadic use by indiginous peoples in such places as the Amazon Basin, Africa and the American West. The popular theory of happy natives living in harmony with nature kind of falls apart when you consider how much they fight (fought) with each other over hunting grounds and fishing holes, among numerous other things.

So, it's a given that all land on earth has been claimed by someone, and much of it has changed hands numerous times. Land has often been "granted" as a reward for service to the guy with the most powerful sword, and private ownership came into being.

Once ownership is established, the only way to transfer that ownership is involuntarily by having it taken by force, or voluntarily by gift or exchange.

So, I see no way to "give" a "fair share" to anyone. Something would have to be taken by force from someone else. It would take a global government bureaucracy to determine what equates to a fair share, since no land is the same, and no two people are the same. Is 10 acres of desert equal to 1 acre of oasis? Is a fair share the same for a healthy person as an infirm one?

Truthfully, I don't have any answers. In order to claim any territory, one must use force to keep and defend it, unless everyone else in the world is willing to cede it. In order to take resources for self-sustenance one must diminish the pool available to others.

I would sure welcome others thoughts on how land and resources would be "fairly and equally distributed."

[EthanAllen]

I would sure welcome others thoughts on how land and resources would be "fairly and equally distributed."

No need to attempt to do this. Just require that in exchange for exclusive use backed by force you are obligated to share the return on land called economic rent directly and equally with other individual members of your community as they would be able to equally take advantage of any natural or socially created opportunities if it were not occupied.

This what Thomas Paine proposed in "Agrarian Justice".

[Sam Adams]

No need to attempt to do this. Just require that in exchange for exclusive use backed by force you are obligated to share the return on land called economic rent directly and equally with other individual members of your community as they would be able to equally take advantage of any natural or socially created opportunities if it were not occupied.

This what Thomas Paine proposed in "Agrarian Justice".

That would appear to me to be a matter of the state (which administers the "sharing") having the greatest force. Isn't that what we oppose, and isn't that exactly what we have today? Taken to its openly declared implementation, it didn't work out very well in the Soviet Union.

I don't think there is any way that force of some kind can be removed from the equation when it comes to the use of natural resources. At best, such plans can work in small cooperatives composed of 100% like-minded individuals, who hold their own communal territory by force.