Civil disobedience - Bob Swann, Tolstoy, MLK, Schumacher and Ghandi

[Lex]

Maybe if there are more people than there is land to go around it's a problem of over population and not a property rights issue?

Just a thought.

[BillG]

Maybe if there are more people than there is land to go around it's a problem of over population and not a property rights issue?

Just a thought.

using the sky as a sink beyond the sustainable yield (Locke's proviso) which creates negative externalities (global warming)  that are not relected in the price of oil is more of a problem for us having overshot our carrying capacity

[Lex]

using the sky as a sink beyond the sustainable yield (Locke's proviso) which creates negative externalities (global warming)  that are not relected in the price of oil is more of a problem for us having overshot our carrying capacity

Green elephants in the sky yielding negative externalities through sustainable oil prices have also overshot their carrying capacity (Flying Elephants principle) and pose a global problem. What's your point?

[BillG]

What's your point?

over population is the result of labor-based property rights being violated via negative externalities because the price charged is not the TRUE cost.

without the true costs we have overshot our carrying capacity.

[Lex]

What's your point?

over population is the result of labor-based property rights being violated via negative externalities because the price charged is not the TRUE cost.

without the true costs we have overshot our carrying capacity.

Okay, I have tried to follow your posts and followed some of your links but i still do not understand what labor-based property is, you haven't defined it in any of your posts.

[BillG]

I still do not understand what labor-based property is

everything that preceeds human labor is part of the natural commons including land, water, air, minerals, oil, forests, etectro-magnetic spectrum, etc.

we take from the commons according to a system of law-based rights to produce useful items via human labor.

law-based property rights (like titles to land) are conditional whereas labor-based property rights are absolute.

Locke had two conditions:

1. spoilage
2. proviso

[Lex]

I still do not understand what labor-based property is

everything that preceeds human labor is part of the natural commons including land, water, air, minerals, oil, forests, etectro-magnetic spectrum, etc.

we take from the commons according to a system of law-based rights to produce useful items via human labor.

law-based property rights (like titles to land) are conditional whereas labor-based property rights are absolute.

It sounds nice and maybe even makes some philosophical sense but I don't think you will ever convince most people to give up the idea that they own their land. Just not going to happen. We have been introduced to the idea that we can own land and there is no going back.

The idea that you do not own your own land just scares me and I don't think I would ever be convinced otherwise.

Many animals are very territorial and that includes humans.

[BillG]

It sounds nice and maybe even makes some philosophical sense but I don't think you will ever convince most people to give up the idea that they own their land. Just not going to happen. We have been introduced to the idea that we can own land and there is no going back.
The idea that you do not own your own land just scares me and I don't think I would ever be convinced otherwise.
Many animals are very territorial and that includes humans.

boy that went right over your head - huh?

ownership of land is a bundle of rights not a single right.

1. use
2. possession
3. exclusion
4. transerability

now I know you are scared but repeat after me out loud to yourself:

"all of these bundled rights remain owned privately by individuals"

again please - out loud

"all of these bundled rights remain owned privately by individuals"

only the last bundled right - economic rent- is CONDITIONAL and therefore MUST remain owned in common inorder for the labor-based property rights of those being excluded to be ABSOLUTE.

how?

hypothetical:
if you are a landowner you DIRECTLY pay all your neighbors 5K and they all DIRECTLY pay you 15K

in otherwords:
you have a 10K HOMESTEAD exemption coming to you in cash.

have I mentioned the state anywhere in this equation?

[Dreepa]

have I mentioned the state anywhere in this equation?

Yes you did.... who is going to enforce this?

You can come take my house and land... but you better bring some people with you.

[Lex]

boy that went right over your head - huh?

I suppose it did - your dialogue is very cryptic indeed. Which explains why nobody else on here can understand what the heck you are talking about. Capitalizing the first word of every sentance would be a good start and trying to use complete coherent sentances and paragraphs would be a good thing too.

ownership of land is a bundle of rights not a single right.

1. use
2. possession
3. exclusion
4. transerability

now I know you are scared but repeat after me out loud to yourself:

"all of these bundled rights remain owned privately by individuals"

again please - out loud

"all of these bundled rights remain owned privately by individuals"

So, to translate, you believe that we should have the right to use our own land (garden on, build our house on), to possess or defend the ownership of our land, to exclude others from our land (?), and the right to transfer the land to somebody else. Is that correct?

only the last bundled right - economic rent- is CONDITIONAL and therefore MUST remain owned in common inorder for the labor-based property rights of those being excluded to be ABSOLUTE.

how?

hypothetical:
if you are a landowner you DIRECTLY pay all your neighbors 5K and they all DIRECTLY pay you 15K

in otherwords:
you have a 10K HOMESTEAD exemption coming to you in cash.

have I mentioned the state anywhere in this equation?

This part didn't make any sense at all. Where are you getting these numbers from? Why am I paying to my neighbors to then get 15k back? Doesn't make any sense.

Either way, I do not understand how there could be any other conditions when you have already stated the right to own/defend and to kick others off your property. What would encourage me to pay this "economic rent" (i have no idea what that is) when I already have all the rights I want to the land? What would you do if I do not pay anyone the tax? Would you come and take my land? Wouldn't that contradict my right to possess the land?

You have to do a little better in explaining your position. Can you try one more time without using your made up words? I don't know what "economic rent" means, in fact it sounds ludicrous to me. Please provide more details to your example as well because your math is magical and I have no idea where the numbers are coming from and how this is supposed to make any sense.

[BillG]

Capitalizing the first word of every sentance would be a good start and trying to use complete coherent sentances and paragraphs would be a good thing too.

working in the computer industry answering e-mails all day, etc. makes for crypitc short sentences with no caps...sorry.

I speak in short cryptic sentences too.

you believe that we should have the right to use our own land (garden on, build our house on), to possess or defend the ownership of our land, to exclude others from our land (?), and the right to transfer the land to somebody else. Is that correct?

yes

I don't know what "economic rent" means

the return on labor is wages
the return on capital is interest/profit
the return on land is economic rent

[Lex]

the return on land is economic rent

What if my family is completely self sufficient and does not produce any goods or services for sale, thus we earn no money to pay the economic rent?

How do you calculate this return on land?

[cathleeninnh]

the return on labor is wages
the return on capital is interest/profit
the return on land is economic rent

You give your labor to receive wages.
You give up the use of capital to receive interest.
What do you give up of your land in order to receive economic rent?

[BillG]

What if my family is completely self sufficient and does not produce any goods or services for sale, thus we earn no money to pay the economic rent?[/quote

well you'll be glad to know that your neighbors are paying you - let's hope it is more than you owe them...

a simple lien will do satisfied at title transfer as even though you don't have the "money to pay" it is the apprecaited land values that will get capitalize at the time of a sale.

How do you calculate this return on land?

amazingly the market is very good at determining prices.