Context for the Bailout - Confessions of a Monopolist

[BillKauffman]

Why do people say there is a scarcity of land?

If there weren't, then there would be no locational value to any land. It is perhaps better to say there is a scarcity of good locations in proximity to the labor and services of others which is what gives rise to locational value in the first place.

[John Edward Mercier]

Addressing Caleb's post above it.

You weren't addressing me, or at least if you were, you weren't addressing anything relevant to what I had said. First, I don't confuse debt with capital (mainly because I don't believe in the morality of being a creditor, I consider the concept of debt illegitimate. The only thing for a creditor to do with debt is to forgive it.)

My post above was just an analogy, nothing more. My point was that you can't say that a person can negotiate his labor when the fact remains that he has to take the terms offered by the employer or the penalty is death. No negotiations because the two people aren't negotiating on equal footing.  It would be similar to the situation if I claimed ownership of all the oxygen in the world, and told you that I would be willing to negotiate with you on the price of the oxygen...the fact that you are unable to breathe until the situation is resolved and I have all the time in the world makes the negotiations unequal. Granted, I won't die as quickly when I am denied access to the means of production, but I will just as assuredly die all the same unless I can produce.

If you borrow something from me with the intent of repayment... you've created a debt.

With capital there is no assumption that I will be repaid... the loss of capital is 'moral hazard'.

[John Edward Mercier]

It would be similar to the situation if I claimed ownership of all the oxygen in the world, and told you that I would be willing to negotiate with you on the price of the oxygen...the fact that you are unable to breathe until the situation is resolved and I have all the time in the world makes the negotiations unequal. Granted, I won't die as quickly when I am denied access to the means of production, but I will just as assuredly die all the same unless I can produce.

Isn't that essential Tolystoy's - via George - critic of private land ownership?

If labor commands capital and not the reverse because it can negotiate on an equal footing without the state weighing in on the side of capitalists - then we would have "laborism" not capitalism. Agreed?

How can one command the other... if cooperation of the two are necessary to complete the task?

[BillKauffman]

It would be similar to the situation if I claimed ownership of all the oxygen in the world, and told you that I would be willing to negotiate with you on the price of the oxygen...the fact that you are unable to breathe until the situation is resolved and I have all the time in the world makes the negotiations unequal. Granted, I won't die as quickly when I am denied access to the means of production, but I will just as assuredly die all the same unless I can produce.

Isn't that essential Tolystoy's - via George - critic of private land ownership?

If labor commands capital and not the reverse because it can negotiate on an equal footing without the state weighing in on the side of capitalists - then we would have "laborism" not capitalism. Agreed?

How can one command the other... if cooperation of the two are necessary to complete the task?

See Caleb analogy on oxygen. If I have access to my own capital & land I can create sustenance for myself. If I don't have access to either all I have is my labor being alienated.

[BaRbArIaN]

Georgism = land socialism  (i.e. just another way of getting people to dump resources into the pool for the many non-productives to use as welfare, "Yeah, I'm harmed because I can't use your land, pay me!")

Ridiculous and it will never happen if human beings are involved.

[BillKauffman]

Georgism = land socialism 

I am afraid you are going to have to define the term "socialism" in the context of how you have used it.

[Pat McCotter]

Georgism = land socialism 

I am afraid you are going to have to define the term "socialism" in the context of how you have used it.

Yep. We can't change the world unless we know exactly what we are talking about and we all agree that we are talking about the same thing.

[BaRbArIaN]

Socialism = coercive collectivism pretending to be democratically inspired, as opposed to Communism, which is coercive collectivism that doesn't pretend to be anything other than rule by those with the most guns in the name of the collective.

The common bond is that the rights of the individual are suppressed for the (supposed) benefit of the collective society.  We all know it is a myth, that societies don't exist and are made up of individuals.  The best means of improving society is to improve the respect of rights for the individual.    Land socialism pretends that the individuals in a society can claim a collective right to all land on Earth and should be paid if anyone wants to deny it.   The fact that the most of the individuals in line for such a payout in no way do any work is conveniently ignored.   This is most popular in European coffee houses frequented by intellectuals on the dole musing on how they could increase their lifestyle.   It will never fly, but do go on, the ravings are amusing.

[BillKauffman]

The common bond is that the rights of the individual are suppressed for the (supposed) benefit of the collective society.

You are quite obviously confusing collective vs. common. One is a joint right (collective) requiring the consensus of all other owners prior to use and the other is an individual right (common). My understanding is that Georgists believe that land should remain owned in common with the privilege of exclusive use only so long as no one is economically harmed. So strict Lockean "provisoists".

[BaRbArIaN]

The common bond is that the rights of the individual are suppressed for the (supposed) benefit of the collective society.

You are quite obviously confusing collective vs. common. One is a joint right (collective) requiring the consensus of all other owners prior to use and the other is an individual right (common). My understanding is that Georgists believe that land should remain owned in common with the privilege of exclusive use only so long as no one is economically harmed. So strict Lockean "provisoists".

Tomato/tomahto... coercive collectivists really don't require the consent of the collective, only that a majority of them do not revolt and replace them as they go about their business of thuggery.  See USSR 1917-1986.

Georgists' greatest folly is that they seem to envision an impartial board (usually composed of Georgists, go figure) who gets to determine what is economic harm and how to distribute the booty.   Considering that the majority has never (and I claim will never) agree with the Georgist propositions, the only way that will happen is by force.   Good luck with that, have fun storming the castle.

[BillKauffman]

they seem to envision an impartial board who gets to determine what is economic harm and how to distribute the booty.

I think the economic harm is determined by the market and returned to all individuals pro-rata.

[BaRbArIaN]

If there were a market for it, it would already be being sold.  You can't create a market by fiat, especially a market for intangibles like that, at least if you aren't using force, then you can make whatever illogical system you like as long as you are holding the guns people will agree.     

[BillKauffman]

If there were a market for it, it would already be being sold.

You are confusing personal utility value and market value.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

The common bond is that the rights of the individual are suppressed for the (supposed) benefit of the collective society.

You are quite obviously confusing collective vs. common. One is a joint right (collective) requiring the consensus of all other owners prior to use and the other is an individual right (common). My understanding is that Georgists believe that land should remain owned in common with the privilege of exclusive use only so long as no one is economically harmed. So strict Lockean "provisoists".

Who bestows the privilege you just mentioned? Also, land being owned in common IS collectivist. Common meaning "everyone" right? How can you claim that "owning something in common" is anything but collectivism?

[BillKauffman]

How can you claim that "owning something in common" is anything but collectivism?

Common ownership is an individual right. I can access/use so long as my access/use does not infringe on any other individual's equal right to the same.

Collective ownership is a joint right. I can only access/use with the explicit consent of all the other owners (consensus) or their delegated authority.