The Georgists

[Dreepa]

I guess a few things I'd like people to think about are:

* Does property become non-property just because you don't defend it 24/7? (do you really need to sit on your porch with a shotgun to defend your ownership of some land?)

no

* What gave you the right to claim that particular piece of land you claim to own? (I mean how did the original owner of a piece get it. You probably bought it legitimately from a previous owner. How do you justify the first owner's claim?)

I guess he was here first.  Maybe they killed the indians who lived here.  Indians didn't believe in individual land ownership -- I think.

[BillG]

Indians didn't believe in individual land ownership -- I think

but as nomadic tribes they certainly defended their hunting territories from encroachment by others.

there was never any real need because there was always enough and as good left for others.

[Lex]

* Does property become non-property just because you don't defend it 24/7? (do you really need to sit on your porch with a shotgun to defend your ownership of some land?)

I think you have to look at this from a practical stand point. If someone comes on your land and builds a house and starts farming it and you do nothing than while you may consider the land still yours even though you are doing nothing to kick them out, after some time you yourself might eventually be kicked off.

So, I would say, no, you do not have to literally sit 24/7 on your porch with a shotgun. It's just that when the time comes and you do nothing when someone does try to take your land than you will loose it.

Even today, if someone comes on your land and builds a house and starts living on it there isn't really anything that would happen to them other than you getting a more expensive property tax since there are two houses on your property. Unless of course when they come on your land you go up to them and say that this is your land and you will call the cops if they don't leave or get your own gun if there is no police in the area...

* What gave you the right to claim that particular piece of land you claim to own? (I mean how did the original owner of a piece get it. You probably bought it legitimately from a previous owner. How do you justify the first owner's claim?)

The first owner would have to have come on the land, settled down and lived on it. When he no longer wants the land he can continue to live on it while it's on the market and collect the sum someone else is willing to pay for it and then leave. If you simply do not want the land than you leave and someone else will come and start living it and it will be theirs.

To clear up some ambiguities. By "living" i don't necessarily mean that you have to be physically present there waiting for something. But if you have a fence/gate around your property and a house on it and there is a sign that the property is maintained I think that's good enough evidence that someone owns the property. If you leave your property for decades and your house falls apart and a jungle grows on it than I would say it's free for the taking.

I don't believe that something becomes non-property just because you don't actively defend it.

YOU don't have to defend it, you can hire someone to do it for you. Basically if it's your land you have to vouch for it being your land. If someone comes on your land it's only common sense that if you don't want them on there you should tell them to leave. If you don't tell them and further force them to leave than how could you possibly expect the land to remain yours?

I also don't believe that if something is genuinely non-property, that the first person to come along and make a claim has any legitimacy. (How do you prove that you were the first? How do you prove that no one else made a prior claim (prove a negative)?)

I think there are several things that can come into play here. If it's just you against someone else without anyone around than I guess you'll just both have to fight for it. If the property has neighbors than they can help to mediate the conflict such as stating that they believe one of you actually lives there and thus back one of you up with their force. My explination may seem a bit extreme until you look at what we have now with eminent domain!

I know some pure anarchists would argue against this, but from a minarchist point of view, one of the major purposes of government is to allow you to NOT spend all your time defending your property.

You can hire someone to defend your property for you, either a government by paying it taxes or a group of armed people (which in my mind is the same thing as government). And ultimately you can do it yourself or make a pact with your neighbors.

[BillG]

so basically we can either have a government to defend our interests or yourself and your neighbors can form a voluntary "pact" to defend an area.

and when a bigger "pact" comes over the hill who are you going to call on?

"ghostbusters"??

[Pat McCotter]

so basically we can either have a government to defend our interests or yourself and your neighbors can form a voluntary "pact" to defend an area.

and when a bigger "pact" comes over the hill who are you going to call on?

"ghostbusters"??

And the geo-lib solution?

You have improved some of that commonly held land. Sopmeone else comes along and says it is theirs. What do you do?

[BillG]

Someone else comes along and says it is theirs. What do you do?

why would anyone want to occupy my location when there is no monetary disadvantage to locating somewhere else?

[Ron Helwig]

And the geo-lib solution?

You have improved some of that commonly held land. Sopmeone else comes along and says it is theirs. What do you do?

Before you improve the land, you get the approval from the community, as represented by the government.

Then when someone else comes along, you have the government properly support your property claim.

The point here is that the government serves as a proxy of all the individuals.

[Pat McCotter]

Someone else comes along and says it is theirs. What do you do?

why would anyone want to occupy my location when there is no monetary disadvantage to locating somewhere else?

Once again you are leaving me at the bakery, Hankster - never any coherency to your examples, just disassociated comments. If you want someone to understand your ideas you must weave a story that illustrates them and makes them understandable to the common folk.

You have stated previously that there is a limited supply of land. Since you stetd that I assumed you were saying all the land was occupied. So I decided to discover what you would do when someone comes along and says that the land you are occupying and the improvements thereon are theirs.

What would this community do if anyone decided not to pay your "economic rent?"

[Lex]

so basically we can either have a government to defend our interests or yourself and your neighbors can form a voluntary "pact" to defend an area.

and when a bigger "pact" comes over the hill who are you going to call on?

"ghostbusters"??

Who did the Iraq "pact" call when the US "pact" invaded them?

It ALWAYS comes down to who is stronger. Doesn't matter if you are socialist, fascist, communist, libertarian, anarchist, etc, there will always be someone else who may try to kill you and it will depend on which one of you is stronger or whichever can call for backup quicker, etc.

You CANNOT have a Geo-Libertarian Utopia unless everysingle person in the entire universe agrees with it and is a member of this Utopia.

That will never happen.

[BillG]

what you would do when someone comes along and says that the land you are occupying and the improvements thereon are theirs.

people wanting to locate on other peoples land is the result of injustice.

sharing the economic rent addresses this issue because it doesn't matter where you locate  - you are neither advantaged or disadvantaged.

in other words - EQUAL liberty and justice is achieved.

[Pat McCotter]

Hankster,
Write a short story/novel/tall tale about how this would work.

Your single sentences assume your audience knows more than they do.

Do not write a philosophical treatise/diatribe about it. That just puts me to sleep.

[Lex]

Write a short story/novel/tall tale about how this would work.

I think you need to define the length and structure for this story, otherwise you're going to get something incoherent like:

once upon a time... thus poor people were unhappy... labor-based property... he paid his neighbor the economic rent he owed... everyone happy with land... the end

[Pat McCotter]

Write a short story/novel/tall tale about how this would work.

I think you need to define the length and structure for this story, otherwise you're going to get something incoherent like:

once upon a time... thus poor people were unhappy... labor-based property... he paid his neighbor the economic rent he owed... everyone happy with land... the end

You're right. Oh, well. I guess this will just have to continue to be a pipe dream. I have some living to do.

[BillG]

Hankster,
Write a short story/novel/tall tale about how this would work.

Your single sentences assume your audience knows more than they do.

Do not write a philosophical treatise/diatribe about it. That just puts me to sleep.

do you want me to give you all the answers?

if you are curious enough to know that the original laissez-faire classical liberals didn't want to abolish taxation all together they wanted a "just" taxation system that protected wages and thus liberty, then you will seek the truth yourself.

if you have already closed your mind and based your decision on emotion then it won't matter how many facts I present.

if you want a novel then read Tolstoy who was a Georgist.

[BillG]

What a coincidence. I am currently reading Jared Diamond's book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.

yes, he shows that societies collapse because they defend their cultural institutions even in the face of imminent ecological collapse ultimately leading to biological extinction..

that is why all the greens arguments based on fear are actually making the situation worse.

people making emotional decisions based on fear believing they have used logical reasoning when infact they haven't.

appealing to logic based on a fear (global warming/peak oil) only hardens people's position.

one has to appeal to saving our cultural institutions in a way that will ultimately address the ecological destruction problem.

treating the natural commons as private capital via state privilege ALWAYS shifts costs that distort the market's pricing system, violates labor-based property rights, and denies self-ownership.

we need instead to privatize the costs that today are negative externalities and socialize the positive externalities which today are privatized.