The Georgists

[Pat McCotter]

You also have not refuted Rothbard's argument either. Do not evade the issue.

is Murray here to debate me?

Is Locke here to debate anybody?

[BillG]

Unfortunate there is confusion promulgated by the Austrian school of economics over the two meanings in the study of economics for the term "value." One is personal value, or utility, which is entirely subjective, and the other is exchange or market value, which can almost always be determined objectively. Clearly, it is market value that is being offered in this case

The market, the public and the community are all the same thing. We just call it the market when it expresses itself economically, the public when it expresses itself politically, and the community (or society) when it expresses itself socially. In all cases, it is the aggregate effect of individual actions. While each individual action is subjective and unpredictable, the aggregate effects are usually easily measured.

Since land doesn't originate with the laborer, titles to land do not originate with the laborer. And if they don't originate with the laborer, then by default, they originate with the State that issued them and enforce them -- hence the term, "law-made property."  Thus, land-titles are State-granted privileges and the only reason to make one group more or less equal in the eyes of the law (privileges = private laws = injustice) is because it enhances the common good. Therefore, the only legitimate reasons for eminent domain (removing someone's title from exclusive use which had been granted BECAUSE it had served the common good) is that a greater common good would be served - in this case an access road to the airport with proper protections for wetands as a buffer around the road.

Since I am against all growth and the effects of speculation and sprawl - I would be against the building of this road and the taking of land by eminent domain.

[BillG]

The dam has been there for 50 years. Would you buy 6 acres if 4.9 of it was underwater?

if I knew the dams lease was soon to be up and that by removal I would be gaining 4.9 acres of land that had previously been underwater? hmmm, seems like a reasonable risk to speculate.

that is why I am asking for the facts...

[BillG]

You also have not refuted Rothbard's argument either. Do not evade the issue.

is Murray here to debate me?

Is Locke here to debate anybody?

I'd be perfectly willing to debate someone making Murray's argument as I am making the case using Locke's.

I have already pointed out where he was wrong on a post of his work on this thread...

but I have never posted a link to Locke's Proviso and told someone to refute it.

[Ron Helwig]

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/georgism.pdf <-- Rothbard's critique of Georgism.

-- Bridget

I can't believe Rothbard wrote something that poorly. 
Lots of strawmen and poor analogies.


"Most present-day economists ignore the land question and Henry George altogether. Land is treated as simply capital, with no special features or problems. Yet there is a land question, and ignoring it does not lay the matter to rest. The Georgists have raised, and continue to raise, questions that need answering. A point-by-point examination of single tax theory is long overdue."

"Single taxers do not deny that land is improved by man; forests are cleared, soil is tilled, houses and factories are built. But they would separate the economic value of the improvements from the basic, or ?site,? value of the original land. The former would continue to be owned by private owners; the latter would accrue to ?society??that is, to society?s representative, the government. Rather than nationalize land outright, the single taxers would levy a 100 percent tax on the annual land rent?the annual income from the site?which amounts to the same thing as outright nationalization."

If this is strictly true, then I am not a strict Georgist. I do not care one bit how much "income" there is from the land. I am fine if someone "owns" some land and lets it lie fallow.

"Idle land, indeed, plays a large part in single tax theory, which contends that wicked speculators, holding out for their unearned increment, keep sites off the market, and cause a scarcity of land; that this speculation even causes depressions."

I do not make this claim. As I said before, I don't care if "wicked speculators" try to hold land unused.

"The single tax theory is further defective in that it runs up against a grave practical problem. How will the annual tax on land be levied? In many cases, the same person owns both the site and the man-made improvement, and buys and sells both site and improvement together, in a single package. How, then, will the government be able to separate site value from improvement value? No doubt, the single taxers would hire an army of tax assessors. But assessment is purely an arbitrary act and cannot be anything else. And being under the control of politics, it becomes purely a political act as well. Value can only be determined in exchange on the market. It cannot be determined by outside observers."

Here Rothbard is clearly wrong. The assessment of the value of property may have some "art" to it, but it is fairly well developed as a science. Assessing a particular piece of real estate includes the process of assessing the value of the land and of the improvements made to it. (I just had an assessment done, which clearly shows these as separate line items). To believe that the free market cannot do something that is done every day is just absurd.

"A single tax would utterly destroy the market?s important job of supplying efficient locations for all man?s productive activities, and the efficient use of available land."

This statement is based on the presumption of a 100% tax on the rent, which is rediculous in itself. A 100% tax on the rent is unworkable and immoral. The correct maximum tax is 5% of the value of the land - regardless of how productive it is.

"The government, of course, might try to combat the disappearance of market rentals by levying an arbitrary assessment, declaring by fiat that every rent is ?really? such and such, and taxing the site owner 100 percent of that amount. Such arbitrary decrees would bring in revenue, but they would only compound chaos further. Since the rental market would no longer exist, the government could never guess what the rent would be on the free market."

This is a nonsequitir. He starts with assuming a 100% tax on the rent, which he claims would destroy the rental market. Then he proceeds to the assumption that something less than a 100% tax would still totally destroy the rental market, thus destroying the rental market. Huh?

Then he proceeds to the absurd idea that this would lead to eventual government ownership outright. I argue it is actually the reverse: if the only revenues coming in to the government's coffers are from the land tax, the government would be trying desparately to relieve itself of ownership, in order to maximize its tax base.

"We have seen that the economic arguments for the single tax are fallacious at every important turn, and that the economic effects of a single tax would be disastrous indeed."

No, we have not. We have seen how one extreme application of the 100% single tax on rent might be problematic, but that does not invalidate the land tax.

"The single taxers complain that site owners benefit unjustly by the rise and development of civilization. As population grows and the economy advances, site owners reap the benefit through a rise in land values."

I make no such claim.

"Among the specially farsighted is the original pioneer?the man who first found a new site and acquired ownership. Furthermore, in the act of clearing the site, fencing it, and the like, the pioneer inextricably mixes his labor with the original land. Confiscation of land would not only retroactively rob heroic men who cleared the wilderness, it would completely discourage any future pioneering efforts. Why should anyone find new sites and bring them into use when the gain will be confiscated? And how moral is this confiscation?"

How moral is is to take the land that doesn't belong to you, and in fact might actually belong to someone else, and damage it? The "real" owner may have been keeping the land unimproved for a variety of reasons: use as a hunting ground, ecological preservation, waiting for the value to rise, etc. The pioneer was quite often seen by the land owners, who just happened to not have as much weaponry backing him up, as the thief.

"We have still to deal with the critical core of single tax moral theory?that no individual has the right to own value in land. Single taxers agree with libertarians that every individual has the natural right to own himself and the property he creates, and to transmit it to his heirs and assigns. They part company with libertarians in challenging the individual?s right to claim property in original, God-given, land. Since it is God-given, they say, the land should belong to society as a whole, and each individual should have an equal right to its use. They say, therefore, that appropriation of any land by an individual is immoral."

Not sure I buy the last sentence, but OK.

"We can accept the premise that land is God-given, but we cannot therefore infer that it is given to society; it is given for the use of individual persons. Talents, health, beauty may all be said to be God-given, but obviously they are properties of individuals, not of society. Society cannot own anything. There is no entity called society; there are only interacting individuals."

That there is no entity called society does not preclude individuals coming together to form organizations to administer their property.

"The single taxers cannot have their cake and eat it; they cannot permit a man to own the fruits of his labor while denying him ownership of the original materials which he uses and transforms."

Another poor argument. A person can go to work, using his own labor but his employer's tools and materials, never actually owning anything that came from the land yet still amazingly being productive and earning wealth.

"The single taxers may claim that the whole world really ?owns? it, but if no one has yet used it, it is really owned by no one. The pioneer, the first user of this land, is the man who first brings this simple valueless thing into production and social use."

Here is the root error that Rothbard et al are making: that the person with the valid claim on a piece of land is the one that makes productive use of it. Taking this logic to its obvious conclusion, the Kelo 7's land should obviously have been given to Pfizer for the more productive use. Making the productive use of land be the determining factor in ownership is fraught with peril.

As AR would say, "check your premises". Ask yourself why you can own something you produced. Then ask yourself why you can own something you didn't produce. Think about the "first" owner of a piece of land - what gives him the right to make that claim?

[BillG]

Thanks Ron - very nice job if I may say so myself!

[ladyattis]

It's very simple, to control a thing is to own a thing. Oh, btw, AR[Ayn Rand] supported land ownership.

-- Bridget

[ladyattis]

Geolibertarians consider land to be the common property of all mankind. They say that private property is derived from an individual's right to the fruits of their labor. Since land is not created by anyone's labor, it cannot be owned. Thus, geolibertarians recognize a right to privately possess land, on the condition that the full rental value be paid to the community. This, they say, has the effect of both giving back the value that belongs to the community and encouraging landowners to only use as much land as they need, leaving plenty for others.

What intrinsic value requires a person to pay any rent under geolibertarianism? Collective/group ethic? No, sorry, I still don't buy it. It's implied that force is the only means to enforce the land rental to the community. And I am dead set against that. How is that implied in geolibertarianism? It's quite simple, how do you guarantee someone will pay this rental? And how is it different than a private rental? I think you geo-libs need to consider your premises as well, because they are fundamentally FLAWED.

One criticism of geolibertarianism is economic - that their analysis of fallow land as the major cause of poverty is wrong. Critics point out that many places have poverty but plenty of land - India for instance. Modern economists do not consider land a separate factor of production, but rather classify it as capital.

Gee, I'm vindicated. Sorry Hankster, you lose.

-- Bridget

[AlanM]

Hankster refuses to answer one very important question: Does he support the use of force regarding the fullfiment of his theory. No deflecting it this time Hankster, answer the question, yes, or no.

[Kat Kanning]

I got tired of moving around his posts to keep the whole forum from being about georgism.? He's gone.

[Dreepa]

Damn because I was going to ask him a question.

If he owns the land 'in common' with me I figured he could help me stack the three cords of wood in my driveway.

[Ron Helwig]

It's very simple, to control a thing is to own a thing. Oh, btw, AR[Ayn Rand] supported land ownership.

-- Bridget

As do I (support land ownership). Just with a twist.

BTW, Ayn was not infallible. I have a friend who has done a good job of refuting her take on life as the ultimate value.

I'm more TOC than ARI - I believe in checking my premises. (oops, and my spelling  )

Also, just because you "need" something does not give you a right to it. Think health care, food, water, etc. Same applies to "a place to stand".

[polyanarch]

You really have to be a bad person to piss of Kat.

[Kat Kanning]

Actually I wasn't really pissed off.   It was too much work to keep him from completely taking over this board.

[ladyattis]

I'm more TOC than ARI - I believe in checking my premises. (oops, and my spelling  )

Well I've checked mine, kiddo. Again if you can control a thing then you can own a thing. But there are different things which can be controlled but never truly owned like controlling the flow of water around your boat, does that I mean I own or it merely possess the ability to own it? Then that makes owning a tertiary quality of the property of control. So it would be more exacting to say to own a thing is to claim a thing. Claiming isn't just merely controlling it, but that does help clarify ownership, it's also the mental faculty to say this is mine. To control is to exert your claim to a thing, to show you own it. If you say I cannot exert a claim on land, then you're asserting that I cannot claim it, which leads to a logical conclusion to not being able to claim other things.

Unless you can show me where the claim[ownership] to land is different from the claim to other things I will not accept the geolib bullshit position.

Also, just because you "need" something does not give you a right to it. Think health care, food, water, etc. Same applies to "a place to stand".

I never stated need what-so-ever. Entitlements are not the hallmark of my views.

-- Bridget