Land rent ad infinitum, ad nauseum

[FrankChodorov]

My main problem with your ideas is not philosophical.  Its practical.  I just don't see how you enforce your philisophical ideas without resorting to force.

Caleb-

unfortunately your position can not be supported by fact because it pre-supposes that today with our current land ownership rights that no force is involve upon those being excluded.

if all land is legally claimed and inorder to exist you must occupy space then yes you have a choice which contract to negotiate with which landowner to buy or lease from or be lucky enough to be gifted a place to sleep but you have no choice NOT to pay someone or be gifted a place to sleep.

therefore you either have to:

1. disclaim a right to self-ownership as the fundamental tenet of libertarianism because you are born with rights - they don't have to be purchased or gifted.

or

2. agree that force is justified to violate property rights to labor.

which is it - you can't have it both ways?

[FrankChodorov]

I think that was someone else that called you that!

oh yes, Cat called me a communist and you called my ideas socialist - correct?

This happens from time to time. Some people confuse 'libertarian' with liberal, and 'free' state with 'free ride'.

and what are you confused about?

[FrankChodorov]

You are wrong about to WHOM this applies!

This was the definitive answer:

"Your land is your land and what is under it is yours also.  What is in it is yours also .
No one cares about your well.

This issue is about community water supplies that pump millions of gallons of water at a time. "


And that is just what I said.....

simple question Jane requiring a simple yes or no answer.

did you or did you not describe on this forum that my ideas are "socialist"

[Caleb]

I called you a Georgist! 

[FrankChodorov]

I called you a Georgist! 

a georgist is only concerned with land but a geonomist is concerned with all aspects of the natural and social commons!

[FrankChodorov]

Jane-

twice in this thread you called me a "collectivist"

twice in this thread you called me and my ideas "socialist" (one of those time you said I was "worst than a socialist")

do you need the links?

here is the first one:

http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=3036.msg52447#msg52447

[CNHT]

You are wrong about to WHOM this applies!

This was the definitive answer:

"Your land is your land and what is under it is yours also.  What is in it is yours also .
No one cares about your well.

This issue is about community water supplies that pump millions of gallons of water at a time. "


And that is just what I said.....

simple question Jane requiring a simple yes or no answer.

did you or did you not describe on this forum that my ideas are "socialist"

Yes...because you don't think I should own my own well water which I mined out of the ground with MY MONEY.
But thankfully you are wrong.

[FrankChodorov]

You are wrong about to WHOM this applies!

This was the definitive answer:

"Your land is your land and what is under it is yours also.  What is in it is yours also .
No one cares about your well.

This issue is about community water supplies that pump millions of gallons of water at a time. "


And that is just what I said.....

simple question Jane requiring a simple yes or no answer.

did you or did you not describe on this forum that my ideas are "socialist"

Yes...because you don't think I should own my own well water which I mined out of the ground with MY MONEY.
But thankfully you are wrong.

I do Jane but as I have repeated over and over to you obviously to no avail not at the expense of some other individual's equal access opportunity rights.

what exact principle do you think you are defending that gives you the right to infringe on the equal access opportunity rights of another person to our common asset in NH - groundwater?

[CNHT]

I do Jane but as I have repeated over and over to you obviously to no avail not at the expense of some other individual's equal access opportunity rights.

what exact principle do you think you are defending that gives you the right to infringe on the equal access opportunity rights of another person to our common asset in NH - groundwater?

The 'prinicple' is PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.

And I'm telling you that I researched this and they would NOT meter a private well that can only pump 75-150lbs of pressure - this applies to LARGE AMOUNTS OF WATER such as from a pumping station or factory, etc..

To spread the FUD that is scaring folks into thinking their private wells can be metered is unconscionable.
That's it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[FrankChodorov]

The 'prinicple' is PRIVATE OWNERSHIP

yes Jane you own the well pipe as private property but you do not own the water in the ground only an individual equal access right.

if and when it is determined that the sustainable yield of the groundwater has been reached then you and everyone else will be forced to either accept a meter on your well and pay the economic rent to others you are economically harming or the well will be filled in with concrete because there is no other way to stop you from infringing on the equal access opportunity rights of others as your use will be infringing on the PRIVATE PROPERTY rights of those being excluded to the absolute rights to their labor.

So your use will levy a tax on all those being excluded from equal access to the common asset.

[CNHT]

So your use will levy a tax on all those being excluded from equal access to the common asset.

My use WILL NOT and CANNOT levy a tax on ANYONE.

[FrankChodorov]

So your use will levy a tax on all those being excluded from equal access to the common asset.

My use WILL NOT and CANNOT levy a tax on ANYONE.

the state has a fiduciary responsibility to protect and preserve the common asset.

at some time in the future as populations and demands continue to rise while supply is fixed there will inevitably come a time inwhich use will have to be limited to only the sustainable yield (replentishment rate).

prior to this point an individual's access /use does not infringe (materially harm) anyone else (called Locke's proviso)...

how do you fairly distribute only the sustainable yield?

sell permits for that amount (or meter people's use) and distribute the collected money (called economic rent) to all the owners of the common asset equally.

if you do not pay for what you take your use in effect levies a tax on those you exclude because you are materially harming their individual common interests.

the state acts rightfully when it FORCES you to cease and desist on the infringement you create on other individual's equal access opportunity rights.

[Ron Helwig]

In other words, there is no objective way to determine just what the heck "enough" or "as good" mean

Ron, of course there is...does the item in question (minus any labor inputs) command a price in the market?

if it does then that defines the extent to which Locke's proviso is violated.

Locke's proviso doesn't apply where a market exists. It is for cases where a market has not yet developed. Once a market has developed, there is no longer any need for the proviso.

Locke is saying that if the land is unclaimed then you can only take...

Locke's proviso also seems to prevent speculating (claiming more than you need in the hope that you can sell later when a market has developed).

In fact, we know that Locke's proviso is not needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

Spencer's statement "the consent of all men must be obtained before any article can be equitably 'removed from the common state nature hath placed it in" is clearly a misunderstand on his part between collective ownership and common ownership.

if the land were owned collectively then yes PRIOR to enclosing for private use all of the owners would have to give consent (consensus)...this is a group right.

but with common ownership individuals can ACT FIRST without permission and then it is determined after the fact whether that access/use infringes on the equal rights of any other individual.

Collective or common - makes no real difference, as they amount to the same thing.

One of the primary purposes of a government is to act as a proxy for "everyone" - by asking the government to approve and defend your claim you are essentially (and legally) asking the everyone to approve and defend your claim. If they stipulate a tax/rent based on the value of the land claimed, that's just a contractual detail.

In fact, you could say that most current land claims come with an admittedly unwritten clause specifying that property can be taxed.

This leads to a way to actually make a transition: Land currently owned by the government can be sold to private parties with a contract clause specifying the tax/rent. A program could be set up to allow people to change to the same contract. Those who wanted to be taxed according to geo-lib principles could choose to do so, and those who like the current system could continue to use that. Give the people a choice!

[FrankChodorov]

Locke's proviso doesn't apply where a market exists. It is for cases where a market has not yet developed. Once a market has developed, there is no longer any need for the proviso.

the proviso is just a condition...enclose away so long as you do not harm anyone else's equal right to the same.

the market determine that extent to which the proviso is being violated.

why would I rent from someone else if I coul subjectively determine that there is "enough and as good" for me to freely homestead via enclosure?

Locke is saying that if the land is unclaimed then you can only take...

no Locke is saying that all land is owned in common and it is just to exclusively use so long as a condition is met...the condition (proviso) being whether or not you have left "enough and as good in common for others"  the extent to which the condition is violated is the economic rent available to be collected on the specific location in question.

Locke's proviso also seems to prevent speculating (claiming more than you need in the hope that you can sell later when a market has developed).

Locke actually had two proviso one was for spoilage...if food was left spoiling in the fields because the landowner had taken too much land to be able to effectively harvest then it was just for people to go onto the land in question and take the food for their own personal use.

the introduction of money did away with the "spoilage" proviso...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#Limits_to_accumulation

Collective or common - makes no real difference, as they amount to the same thing.

they are actually opposite - one being group rights the other being individual rights.

In his critique of Spencer in his book: "A Perplexed Philosopher", George made a clear distinction between common rights and collective rights.

excerpt:
    The fact is, that without noticing the change, Mr. Spencer has dropped the idea of equal rights to land, and taken up in its stead a different idea -- that of joint rights to land. That there is a difference may be seen at once. For joint rights may be and often are unequal rights.

    The matter is an important one, as it is the source of a great deal of popular confusion. Let me, therefore, explain it fully.

    When men have equal rights to a thing, as for instance, to the rooms and appurtenances of a club of which they are members, each has a right to use all or any part of the thing that no other one of them is using. It is only where there is use or some indication of use by one of the others that even politeness dictates such a phrase as "Allow me!" or "If you please!"

    But where men have joint rights to a thing, as for instance, to a sum of money held to their joint credit, then the consent of all the others is required for the use of the thing or of any part of it, by any one of them.

    Now, the rights of men to the use of land are not joint rights: they are equal rights.

    Were there only one man on earth, he would have a right to the use of the whole earth or any part of the earth.

    When there is more than one man on earth, the right to the use of land that any one of them would have, were he alone, is not abrogated: it is only limited. The right of each to the use of land is still a direct, original right, which he holds of himself, and not by the gift or consent of the others; but it has become limited by the similar rights of the others, and is therefore an equal right. His right to use the earth still continues; but it has become, by reason of this limitation, not an absolute right to use any part of the earth, but (1) an absolute right to use any part of the earth as to which his use does not conflict with the equal rights of others (i.e., which no one else wants to use at the same time), and (2) a coequal right to the use of any part of the earth which he and others may want to use at the same time.

    It is, thus, only where two or more men want to use the same land at the same time that equal rights to the use of land come in conflict, and the adjustment of society becomes necessary.

    If we keep this idea of equal rights in mind -- the idea, namely, that the rights are the first thing, and the equality merely their limitation -- we shall have no difficulty. It is through forgetting this that Mr. Spencer has been led into confusion.

[DC]

This fits with someone that doesn't respect other peoples property. Your forum at the DFCNH site still doen't have any post but you have the time to trash up other peoples forums. Don't tell me again that someone else started the forum because they thought they were going to be in charge. He was obviosly the one that should have been in charge. You should resign and apologize for doing such a poor job.