• Welcome to New Hampshire Underground.
 

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Main Menu

Stupid Georgist Tricks or how Common Ownership IS Collective Ownership...

Started by ladyattis, November 18, 2005, 12:49 PM NHFT

Previous topic - Next topic

ladyattis

Basically, common ownership is the brief that things that are 'held' or a property[physics and ontology sense] of something in common are 'commonly owned.' But here's a kicker, common ownership in this guise does not lead to the Georgist fallacy of common ownership, via economic rent, of land. Why? Just as I own blood in 'common' with other animals, it does not mean I am owed blood. The ownership of a categorical property is not the same ownership of my car or a pencil in my backpack. Ownership in this light is CONTEXTUAL and HAS DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS when examined for DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.

In the same point I may indeed own land in common as a property of being an Earthling, but that does not follow that I collectively own the land with others via economic rent as the Georgists will state by superimposing the word common for collective. Thus, I can own land in common and NOT-IN-COMMON with others. Such as I own a house in the backwoods of New England uncommonly with that of others, but I own the general idea of land in common with others.

Also, the Georgist trick of economic rent, the belief that I owe others a rent for my use of space, is fallacious for the same reason of definitional error. Economic rent in this lense becomes an entitlement based on the belief that my occupation of a space whether for living processes or economic gain is an impediment to others. Thus, it is assumed I owe an economic rent for this impediment. But that doesn't follow since my expenditures for my living processes or my economic gain on land require me to TRADE WITH OTHERS, THUS I PAY FOR THAT WHICH IS CALLED AN ECONOMIC RENT VIA FREE MARKET ENTERPRISE ON BOTH SITUATIONS. So that means the Economic Rent of Georgism is a NON-SEQUITOR.

Ultimately, if one goes by the reasoning of the Georgists, then two things occur. You pay a tax called Economic Rent to everyone just for occupying a space for whatever reason in every season[heh that rhymes], even though your expenditures for that particular reason pays the same economic rent already just in a manner the Georgists dislike, the free market font. So basically, economic rent of Georgism is an entitlement/social-welfare tax to prop up the legal fiction called the State.

I will also point out that if things that are held in common with other beings are commonly owned via economic rent, then others are owed an economic rent from the use of ideas. Yes, folks, we all owe M$, Shakespear, Whedon, and etc an economic rent on their ideas, even though their is no true scarcity for them. It's just the fact that we may or may not impede the progress of said entities for not paying them for their ideas. :lol:

See how Georgism fails? :D

-- Bridget

BaRbArIaN

Georgists always amuse me.  They go to great lengths to explain their system, how nobody can own land only its improvements and temporary constructions on it etc., that all own it equally and so forth.   Start a thread in alt.politics.libertarian on usenet and see what it attracts, some of the "land socialists" really get heated over it.  It sounds to me also that it is just a scheme to collect welfare and support Georgists in their coffee shops as they tsk-tsk over all those people using the land and preventing others from using it (not that they would).   

I got into a discussion about Georgism and space exploration with one of them once.  He really believed that unused planets/asteroids/moons, etc. belonged to all humanity and when if ever people started using them, they would have to cede over a good chunk of their gains to "society" (i.e. social welfare) to make up for trampling on and exploiting everyone's resources.  Often such fantasy involves propping up the UN and making it the only arbiter/taxer/distributor/force user of course, or presuming some Georgist awakening in the near future when everyone will just voluntarily start forking over their "land rent" to the people on top of all the other taxes and fees or be subject to arrest/death etc.   These guys are looney at best and insidious terror threats at worst (since they all seem to have some joy at the thought of that last part).