The Georgists

[Lex]

the right of self-ownership and it's natural logical extension the right to the fruits of your labor means that you are born with it and it does not require that you have to purchase or be gifted the right...no?

If I own the fruits of my labor how does it makes sense that you can take it from me in the form of property taxes?

[hankster]

the right of self-ownership and it's natural logical extension the right to the fruits of your labor means that you are born with it and it does not require that you have to purchase or be gifted the right...no?

If I own the fruits of my labor how does it makes sense that you can take it from me in the form of property taxes?

because you contribute NO labor to the economic rent.

1. you didn't produce the land itself
2. you didn't create the unimproved land value (economic rent) your neighbors' labor does
3. in a pure rent sharing scenario, there would be no purchase price to land.

it is your neighbors' labor that creates the economic rent, it is your act of enclosure backed by the state that beyond Locke's Proviso forces a legal and monetary obligation (a tax) on the excluded denying them their equal access opportunity right to the location that you occupy and thus their absolute property right to their labor.

the economic rent is a naturally occuring phenomena that appears when two or more parties compete for access to scarce locations...the only decision we have is who should pay.

[Lex]

the economic rent is a naturally occuring phenomena that appears when two or more parties compete for access to scarce locations...the only decision we have is who should pay.

[who should pay] and for how long.

In your scenario the land owner pays FOREVER. In my scenario the excluded pays a rent until he/she decides to purchase their own land.

You are proposing ETERNAL SLAVERY while i'm proposing merely working for which you desire and once you acquire it you may enjoy the fruits of your labor. In your system that time never comes since you are constantly working and never have a chance to just enjoy your accomplishments. It is plain and simple slavery.

[hankster]

the economic rent is a naturally occuring phenomena that appears when two or more parties compete for access to scarce locations...the only decision we have is who should pay.

[who should pay] and for how long.

In your scenario the land owner pays FOREVER. In my scenario the excluded pays a rent until he/she decides to purchase their own land.

You are proposing ETERNAL SLAVERY while i'm proposing merely working for which you desire and once you acquire it you may enjoy the fruits of your labor. In your system that time never comes since you are constantly working and never have a chance to just enjoy your accomplishments. It is plain and simple slavery.

a right does not have to be purchased or gifted - you are born with it.

if the excluded pay there is no good or service being exchanged because a good or service requires labor whereas if the excluders pay they are getting access to an exclusive specific location that others have an individual equal access opportunity right to

I am saying it is logically impossible to have absolute property rights in land at the same time as absolute property rights in labor...they are mutually exclusive

[Lex]

the economic rent is a naturally occuring phenomena that appears when two or more parties compete for access to scarce locations...the only decision we have is who should pay.

[who should pay] and for how long.

In your scenario the land owner pays FOREVER. In my scenario the excluded pays a rent until he/she decides to purchase their own land.

You are proposing ETERNAL SLAVERY while i'm proposing merely working for which you desire and once you acquire it you may enjoy the fruits of your labor. In your system that time never comes since you are constantly working and never have a chance to just enjoy your accomplishments. It is plain and simple slavery.

a right does not have to be purchased or gifted - you are born with it.

if the excluded pay there is no good or service being exchanged because a good or service requires labor whereas if the excluders pay they are getting access to an exclusive specific location that others have an individual equal access opportunity right to

I am saying it is logically impossible to have absolute property rights in land at the same time as absolute property rights in labor...they are mutually exclusive

I took pictures of the land and took the time to list it for sale, thus it is the product of my labor.

[ladyattis]

1. Rights are Oughtbies aka MORAL PRINCIPLES, thus are voluntary. And they are NEVER EQUALLY ASSIGNED. An example would be the rights not shared between a mother and an athletic man. Equality is never possible. And to demand rights is the attempt of a 'weaker' individual to demand something that is never owed. The humor in all this, is that some so-called libertarians [like the Georgists] pull this stunt, but never realize [or never wish to realize] that this is the same as egalitarianism.

2. People may be excluded and maybe harmed by the exclusion, but no one is promised anything by anyone beyond that which is explicitely attributed in a social situation. For example, I am not promised anything by a mere stranger just by our respective cohabitation in space and time. Only when I and the stranger decide to identify ourselves and to interact do promises [and thus obligations] emerge as necessity of civil interaction; otherwise we would never talk or interact. Because of this non-obligation by occupation, it does mean some folks may have to pay an 'unfair' rent for something like found in land speculation, but this is not often the case in the real world. A land owner that excludes others or seeks an impossible amount for a property clearly are harmed by these actions because the exclusion either through explicit demands or impossible amounts for rent will not yield any maximal value from the land in any form. Thus, a land owners is compelled by economics, not moral theories, to provide the land at a nominal fee, and to provide THE SERVICE OF MAINTAINANCE to make the deal attractive to others.

Ultimately, the Georgists want a collective control mechanism for land, and it doesn't work. Whether you look at Soviet Russia or modern Japan, in both cases farmers were forced out, land became underused [especially in urban environments], and pollution on such properties became a problem from lack of concern to clean up. Until the Georgist figure a methodology to ensure none of these ever occur, I see no merit to their theories considering how much the economic harm of central planning is more than that of a few isolated wouldbe land princes.

-- Bridget

[hankster]

the economic rent is a naturally occuring phenomena that appears when two or more parties compete for access to scarce locations...the only decision we have is who should pay.

[who should pay] and for how long.

In your scenario the land owner pays FOREVER. In my scenario the excluded pays a rent until he/she decides to purchase their own land.

You are proposing ETERNAL SLAVERY while i'm proposing merely working for which you desire and once you acquire it you may enjoy the fruits of your labor. In your system that time never comes since you are constantly working and never have a chance to just enjoy your accomplishments. It is plain and simple slavery.

a right does not have to be purchased or gifted - you are born with it.

if the excluded pay there is no good or service being exchanged because a good or service requires labor whereas if the excluders pay they are getting access to an exclusive specific location that others have an individual equal access opportunity right to

I am saying it is logically impossible to have absolute property rights in land at the same time as absolute property rights in labor...they are mutually exclusive

I took pictures of the land and took the time to list it for sale, thus it is the product of my labor.

and an assessment can separate out the value of that improved value via labor and assign the rest of the unimproved value to economic rent.

[ladyattis]

And those that make this assessment are clearly the ones with the power to evict even those that are retired and too old to work from land... WTG, Georgist scumbags... Sorry, but I prefer my methodology over yours. I have no obligation to pay for anything or anyone, got it? [cleans out an old rifle...]

-- Bridget

[hankster]

the Georgists want a collective control mechanism for land

collective ownership would mean that any of the members of the group who have a "group" claim of ownership would have to get permission PRIOR to access/use from every other owner (consensus)

OR

from their delegated authority (the state).

the group owners or their delegated authority can dictate terms and conditions of use.

common ownership would mean an INDIVIDUAL does NOT have to ask anyone for prior permission of use SO LONG AS that use does NOT infringe on the equal access opportunity right of anyone else.

the state acts within their justified use of force role to prevent this infringement to protect the ABSOLUTE property right claim that the excluded have to their wages.

beyond Locke's Proviso the exclusive use of a specific location FORCES a legal and monetary OBLIGATION (a tax) on the excluded that can only be satisfied by sacrificing their ABSOLUTE property rights to their labor.

[hankster]

And those that make this assessment are clearly the ones with the power to evict even those that are retired and too old to work from land...

you mean like they do when a tenant can't pay the economic rent portion of their lease payment?

no need to evict anyone...a simple lien to be paid at title transfer is sufficient.

[Lex]

And those that make this assessment are clearly the ones with the power to evict even those that are retired and too old to work from land...

you mean like they do when a tenant can't pay the economic rent portion of their lease payment?

Uh, no. You are comparing the wrong things. More like if you purchased a piece of land and paid for the entire amount and were living happily ever after untill scumbag georgists came a long and decided it wasn't enough that you worked to purchase the land, they want you to continue to work to KEEP the land and will FORCE you to work forever to keep your land, thus putting you in a position of ETERNAL SLAVERY!

I don't believe anyone here is looking for a system in which they will become slaves.

[Lex]

and an assessment can separate out the value of that improved value via labor and assign the rest of the unimproved value to economic rent.

I sold the ENTIRE piece of land, thus all of it was affected by me and improved through my entrepreneurial actions (labor). No need for any assessments.

[ladyattis]

the Georgists want a collective control mechanism for land

collective ownership would mean that any of the members of the group who have a "group" claim of ownership would have to get permission PRIOR to access/use from every other owner (consensus)

OR

from their delegated authority (the state).

Both are the same to me. The State's business is not to handle land, period and end of story. If you want a State that does that, then do it with your own. If you assert any controls over me or others that are aligned with me, you will get my reprisal. Understood?

the group owners or their delegated authority can dictate terms and conditions of use.

And the State as you fashioned it is NO BETTER. What has changed? You just put the smaller wouldbe land princes's power into that of slothful, gluttonous bureaucrats! And they, with their UNLIMITED POWER AND ARBITRARY ASSESSMENTS WILL MOVE WHO THEY WISH TO WHERE THEY WISH.

common ownership would mean an INDIVIDUAL does NOT have to ask anyone for prior permission of use SO LONG AS that use does NOT infringe on the equal access opportunity right of anyone else.

There is no equal access to anything. I don't have equal access to air, water, food, space, and etc. I must assert force to gain these things, be it against natural forces or against other humans. Why I don't kill others for food is because I do not see a benefit in doing as such. And why I don't kill for land or space is because there are better methods to maximize my existence. Your claims are based on the assumption of natural rights, which has no basis in NATURE. Oughtbes are NOT WILLBES.

the state acts within their justified use of force role to prevent this infringement to protect the ABSOLUTE property right claim that the excluded have to their wages.

There is no justified use of force by the State. The State's role is to arbitrate for restitution, not to enact bull-thuggery.

beyond Locke's Proviso the exclusive use of a specific location FORCES a legal and monetary OBLIGATION (a tax) on the excluded that can only be satisfied by sacrificing their ABSOLUTE property rights to their labor.

Locke assumes there are natural rights, which is why I disagree with Georgism from the get-go. There are no natural rights, there is only the freedom of left-alone or not. In that vein, I could live in the woods and never speak to another human being to the day I die and never have any rights for the simple fact that rights are garnered as part of a moral system of human interaction. If I have no other humans to interact with then I have no rights. Also, rights in such a system are NEVER EQUAL UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Thus, I am not entitled to anything beyond left-alone. That is the principle of any moral system, if I don't do X-Y-Z, then I am left alone. Pure and simple. I own land, fend for myself, and not get into any trouble, then leave alone. An old lass that is retired and can't pay for your economic rent will be tossed out on her cookies. And to claim a lien, moron, is RETARDED. A LIEN MUST BE PAID FOR IT TO BE OF VALUE. THE STATE ASSERTS LIENS TO PAY FOR TAXES. A BUSINESS ASSERTS LIENS TO PAY FOR BILLS. IF A LIEN IS NOT PAID THE PERSON LOSES THE PROPERTY, BE IT A CAR OR A HOUSE. IT GOES TO A PUBLIC AUCTION AND IS SOLD.

If the old lass cannot pay the lien then SHE LOSES THE HOUSE, GOT IT? SHE IS EVICTED, GOT IT? YOU WANT TO BE A BULLY GO SOMEWHERE ELSE, BECAUSE I GUARANTEE YOU,? I WILL TAKE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY BY THE POINT OF FORCE TO ENSURE MINE.

-- Bridget

[Lex]

ping