The Georgists

[tracysaboe]

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

I wondered if maybe you programed the forum so that all his posts automatically get stuck on this thread.

Tracy

[Ron Helwig]

OK, finally some good responses!

if you can control a thing then you can own a thing.

You mean like other people? Just because you "can" doesn't make it right. There has to be something more to it, like that the thing you are claming ownership of was created by your own efforts or was rightfully purchased by the proceeds of your own efforts.

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?

This is why we have distinctions on types of property. Personal property is that which you rightfully own outright. "Real Estate" is a separate type of property that, in Orwellian fashion, was misnamed to make it appear like a natural right instead of the civil right it actually is.

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.

Doesn't follow. Different things have properties which determine whether they can be rightfully claimed or not. A claim of ownership of another person is not legitimate. That doesn't mean that there aren't things that can be legitimately claimed.

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.

Of course. No one produced the land. It is not the result of anyone's efforts. That makes it inherently different from things like pencils and cars and houses, which are the result of someone's effort.

In other words, land is not the result of anyones volitional actions, while other things are.

There is also a distinction between so-called intellectual property and personal property. The founding fathers understood this, which is why the former is limited, but the latter is not.

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.

That was a response to others, in this and other threads.

In any event, all this is based on the assumption that government is needed. I don't necessarily buy that, but if you accept that assumption as a premise then the land tax seems to be the best and most moral way to pay for it. If not the land tax, then what?

[AlanM]

This is why we have distinctions on types of property. Personal property is that which you rightfully own outright. "Real Estate" is a separate type of property that, in Orwellian fashion, was misnamed to make it appear like a natural right instead of the civil right it actually is.

Here is the crux of the matter. It all depends on WHAT distinctions you place on it.
If I pick up an apple which has fallen off a wild tree, can I claim it for my property?

[Lloyd Danforth]

This is why we have distinctions on types of property. Personal property is that which you rightfully own outright. "Real Estate" is a separate type of property that, in Orwellian fashion, was misnamed to make it appear like a natural right instead of the civil right it actually is.

Here is the crux of the matter. It all depends on WHAT distinctions you place on it.
If I pick up an apple which has fallen off a wild tree, can I claim it for my property?

Once all land is in privite hands there will be no wild apples.

[Kat Kanning]

How about wild oats?   

[AlanM]

How about wild oats?? ?

Sowing wild oats is a Natural Right. 

[Kat Kanning]

Renaming this for you.

[Russell Kanning]

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.

He would want some of the wood.

[AlanM]

Georgist, georgist,
No peace I find,
Just the same old song,
From Georgist, I find.

[Kat Kanning]

Thank You!!!!

Who are you talking to?

[Kat Kanning]

I was trying to offend Hankster with the old one.

[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.

He would want some of the wood.

But then he would make everyone on this board pay some money or is that I would pay some money to them.

I get confused with all this 'commons' stuff.

[AlanM]

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.

He would want some of the wood.

But then he would make everyone on this board pay some money or is that I would pay some money to them.

I get confused with all this 'commons' stuff.

You would pay, and pay, and pay. Plus, they would confiscate your wood, since it came from the commons.

[Lex]

You would pay, and pay, and pay. Plus, they would confiscate your wood, since it came from the commons.

I would say that's an excellent summary of the Georgist perspective :-)

[Ron Helwig]

This is why we have distinctions on types of property. Personal property is that which you rightfully own outright. "Real Estate" is a separate type of property that, in Orwellian fashion, was misnamed to make it appear like a natural right instead of the civil right it actually is.

Here is the crux of the matter. It all depends on WHAT distinctions you place on it.
If I pick up an apple which has fallen off a wild tree, can I claim it for my property?

Given the assumption that the tree is indeed wild, I see no problem with making a claim on the fallen apple. I do see a difference with making a claim on the land on which the tree is growing.