Land rent ad infinitum, ad nauseum

[Dreepa]

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush....

[CNHT]

He isn't a libertarian, he's a communist.  Why are you arguing with a troll?

Well I was waiting for reinforcements, and now you are here. 

[FrankChodorov]

He isn't a libertarian, he's a communist.  Why are you arguing with a troll?

Well I was waiting for reinforcements, and now you are here. 

why - are you some sort of collectivist?

generally a communist believes in the collective ownership of the means of production (land, labor, capital)

whereas I believe:

1. that both the products of labor (wealth) and the return on labor (wages) plus capital (stored labor as wealth) and the return on capital (profit/interest) are the absolute property rights of individuals.

2. that ownership of natural resources (including land) is not a single right but rather a bundle of rights that include:

a. use
b. possession
c. exclusion
d. transferability
e. economic rent

that all natural resources start out as owned in common (no human labor creates them) where we all have an INDIVIDUAL equal access opportunity right to freely access/use and are JUSTLY enclosed as individual private property so long as the exclusive access/use does not infringe on the equal rights of others to the same.

therefore inorder to protect the absolute labor-based property rights of those being excluded, the bundled ownership right to the economic rent which only appears beyond Locke's proviso and defines the extent of the infringement described above, MUST remain owned in common as an INDIVIDUAL equal access opportunity right.

collective rights are group rights...
common rights are individual rights...

please point out the flaws in reasoning if you can!

[CNHT]

Jane...arguing with a troll?  Perish the thought...

Scotty -- someone has to set him straight!

[FrankChodorov]

Jane...arguing with a troll?  Perish the thought...

Scotty -- someone has to set him straight!

Jane -- someone has to get it straight!

might as well be you 

then you can have me on your radio show and we can set the rest of the FSP straight too...deal?

[CNHT]

Jane -- someone has to get it straight!

might as well be you 

then you can have me on your radio show and we can set the rest of the FSP straight too...deal?

Ed and Howie would rip your ideas to shreds...believe me. It would not be pretty. Um, no thanks.

[FrankChodorov]

Jane -- someone has to get it straight!

might as well be you 

then you can have me on your radio show and we can set the rest of the FSP straight too...deal?

Ed and Howie would rip your ideas to shreds...believe me. It would not be pretty.

you mean like you are now?

not understanding:

1. the philosophical difference between collective and common ownership
2. that property rights are based on labor as the natural extension of self-ownership
3. that the father of classical liberal property rights, John Locke, made ownership of land conditional
4. that individual common rights like freedom of speech are core to the foundational principles of our constitutional republic and define negative liberty
5. that libertarians fundamental principle of self-ownership is a fraud because of the land tenure system they support

by you and others resorting to the ultimate red-herring of calling me a communist?

[Ron Helwig]

The very first Google hit on "Locke's proviso" http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/fremery_nozick_review_of.html points out why it isn't valid:

Why does mixing one's labour with something make one the owner of it? Perhaps because one owns one's labour, and so one comes to own a previously unowned thing that becomes permeated with what one owns. Ownership seeps over into the rest. But why isn't mixing what I own with what I don't own a way of losing what I own rather than a way of gaining what I don't? ... Why should one's entitlement extend to the whole object rather than just to the added value one's labour has produced?

If inclined to cavil, one might in reply to this observe, that as, according to the premises, 'the earth and all inferior creatures' - all things, in fact, that the earth produces - are common to all men,' the consent of all men must be obtained before any article can be equitably 'removed from the common state nature hath placed it in.' It might be argued that the real question is overlooked, when it is said, that, by gathering any natural produce, a man 'hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby made it his property,' for that the point to be debated is, whether he had any right to gather, or mix his labour with that, which, by the hypothesis, previously belonged to mankind at large. The reasoning used in the last chapter to prove that no amount of labour, bestowed by an individual upon a part of the earth's surface, can nullify the title of society to that part, might be similarly employed to show that no one can, by the mere act of appropriating to himself any wild unclaimed animal or fruit, supersede the joint claims of other men to it may be quite true that the labour a man expends in catching or gathering, gives him a better right to the thing caught or gathered, than any one other man; but the question at issue is, whether by labour so expended, he has made his right to the thing caught or gathered, greater than the pre-existing rights of all other men put together And unless he can prove that he has done this, his title to possession cannot be admitted as a matter of right, but can be conceded only on the ground of convenience.

Further difficulties are suggested by the qualification, that the claim to any article of property thus obtained, is valid only 'when there is enough and as good left in common for others.' A condition like this gives birth to such a host of queries, doubts, and limitations, as practically to neutralize the general proposition entirely. It may be asked, for example - How is it to be known that enough is 'left in common for others'? Who can determine whether what remains is 'as good' as what is taken; How if the remnant is less accessible? If there is not enough 'left in common for others,' how must the right of appropriation be exercised? Why, in such case, does the mixing of labour with the acquired object cease to 'exclude the common right of other men'? Supposing enough to be attainable, but not all equally good, by what rule must each man choose?

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

I never bought in to that whole "mixing labor" fraud.

[CNHT]

Jane -- someone has to get it straight!

might as well be you 

then you can have me on your radio show and we can set the rest of the FSP straight too...deal?

Ed and Howie would rip your ideas to shreds...believe me. It would not be pretty.

you mean like you are now?

not understanding:

1. the philosophical difference between collective and common ownership
2. that property rights are based on labor as the natural extension of self-ownership
3. that the father of classical liberal property rights, John Locke, made ownership of land conditional
4. that individual common rights like freedom of speech are core to the foundational principles of our constitutional republic and define negative liberty
5. that libertarians fundamental principle of self-ownership is a fraud because of the land tenure system they support

by you and others resorting to the ultimate red-herring of calling me a communist?

I think that was someone else that called you that!

[Caleb]

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

[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?

[FrankChodorov]

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.

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.

[CNHT]

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'.

[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.....

[Caleb]

Now, now, you two. ... Can't we all just get along?