Land rent ad infinitum, ad nauseum

[BaRbArIaN]

DFCNH = Delusional Fantasies Can Never Happen group?  You're certainly the expert.

[FrankChodorov]

DFCNH = Delusional Fantasies Can Never Happen group?  You're certainly the expert.

I take it you are not interested...

[CNHT]

DFCNH = Delusional Fantasies Can Never Happen group?  You're certainly the expert.

Um 'progressive, pro-freedom caucus, which promotes the values which the Democratic Party was founded upon: individual liberty, constitutional democracy, and social responsibility' sounds like pushing socialism to me Especially when advocating that water be owned in common. The UN would like to tax that water per Agenda 21... I suppose you go along with that?

[FrankChodorov]

sounds like pushing socialism

can you cite one example of where I have advocated for the collective ownership of anything?

Especially when advocating that water be owned in common.

Jane - sorry to inform you but the water IS owned in common in NH with the state as the public trustee...

[Caleb]

It goes without saying that some things must be owned in common.  The Sun.  Air.  Water. 

But why would that interfere with the public's right to use things owned in common?   In other words, just because I don't OWN the sun doesn't mean that just anybody can sunbathe in my (hypothetical) front lawn.  If I own property, I have the right to apportion off a certain area for my own use.  The same logic would go with Air and Water.

Why can't you extend the same idea to land?

Caleb

[Dreepa]

How 'high' do you own?  If I own one acre of land.  How much airspace do I own?  First 100ft?  First 1000?  Can I charge rent to the airplanes? Satellites?

[FrankChodorov]

why would that interfere with the public's right to use things owned in common?

who exactly is supporting not allowing individuals to use things in common?

their use is only bracketed by the equal claim of other indivduals to the same.

just because I don't OWN the sun

but you do own the sun...in common with everyone else.

doesn't mean that just anybody can sunbathe in my (hypothetical) front lawn

correct - not without your permission as your lawn is yours for exclusive use as one of the bundled rights of land ownership.

If I own property, I have the right to apportion off a certain area for my own use.  The same logic would go with Air and Water.

correct again - so long as you left "enough and as good in common for others" - no problems...easy to do with air and a little harder with water and damn near impossible with land as all inhabitable land is for all intent and purpose all legally claimed.

Why can't you extend the same idea to land?

the pertinent question is why YOU can't extend the same idea of common ownership of sun, air, and water to land?

it is just for an individual to enclose the land for exclusive use so long as "enough and as good is left in common for others" and when there is not "enough and as good left in common for others" the specific location in question aquires the last bundled right of land ownership and that is called "economic rent".

so inorder for the absolute property rights to the fruits of labor of those being excluded from being violated and hence denying their absolute right to self-ownership (the basic tenet of libertarianism) the economic rent that is not the result of the labor of the landowner (it is unimproved land value) MUST be shared equally and directly (remain owned in common) between neighbors within a community.

Caleb-

why is this so darn hard for a Democratic candidate for Congress seeking the DFC endorsement in NH to comprehend?

[tracysaboe]

How 'high' do you own?  If I own one acre of land.  How much airspace do I own?  First 100ft?  First 1000?  Can I charge rent to the airplanes? Satellites?

Libertarians believe in homesteading. As long as flying over your land doesn't interfear with the use of the land you've homesteaded, then it's fine. Now if you're using solar energy to power your houase, and passively heat your house, grow your grass, etc. Then you've homesteaded that solar energy and the people that build roads over your house, and fly airplains over it, etc. need to do it in such a way so as not to interfere with that solar energy that you've currently homesteaded.

But you didn't do anything to homestead the air 100 feet above your home, so as long as somebody 100 feet above your home isn't interfering w/ the use of your home and property on the ground, it's fair gain. Now practically, is it possible to use air 100 feet above your home w/out interfering w/ your use of your property? Probably not, so common law would eventually standardize distances that make sence.

Anyway,

Tracy

[BaRbArIaN]

Unlike air and oceans, there are mechanisms in place to ensure property rights to land.   You can't remove them and put in place your universal Georgist welfare scheme.  Like a penguin with feathers glued to it, it just won't fly.

[FrankChodorov]

Unlike air and oceans, there are mechanisms in place to ensure property rights to land.   You can't remove them and put in place your universal Georgist welfare scheme.  Like a penguin with feathers glued to it, it just won't fly.

I hate to infringe on your little party but are you aware that the state of NH is financed via the property tax?

and the property tax includes:

1. a tax on the value of buildings or what is better known as capital which is simply stored labor of the landowner
2. a tax on the value of your unimproved land value or what is better known as economic rent which the landowner contributes no labor towards creating.

I am improving on this by saying:

a. the tax on your buildings (capital) is theft
b. the tax on the unimproved value of land must be shared directly and equally between neighbors in a community otherwise if the state collects, keeps, and spends the money then the economic rent is not owned in common but rather owned collectively.

I am not a collectivist.

[BaRbArIaN]

You're not a realist either.

[FrankChodorov]

You're not a realist either.

let me ask you this then...do you agree with me that a tax on capital is theft?

and for sake of argument you do, does that make you a "half" realist or partially "unreal" yourself?

[CNHT]

It goes without saying that some things must be owned in common.  The Sun.  Air.  Water. 

But why would that interfere with the public's right to use things owned in common?   In other words, just because I don't OWN the sun doesn't mean that just anybody can sunbathe in my (hypothetical) front lawn.  If I own property, I have the right to apportion off a certain area for my own use.  The same logic would go with Air and Water.

Why can't you extend the same idea to land?

Caleb

You are correct. We can't just drag our lawnchairs over to your place because we have too much shade, and demand you let us tan...
but the UN is encroaching on our National Parks:

http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/whtanalysis.htm

[BaRbArIaN]

let me ask you this then...do you agree with me that a tax on capital is theft?

and for sake of argument you do, does that make you a "half" realist or partially "unreal" yourself?

Sure.  I just don't agree that land can't be owned by individuals with legally aquired title to it  (goes against all historical precedent other than some obscure references to an anarchic period in Iceland and some Celt tribes).    It shouldn't be taxed either.  Somehow the US got along just fine without property taxes or income taxes for quite some time while it was merely taking care of what it was Constitutionally mandated to do rather than assuming there was some entitlement clause letting it balloon in power and taxing ability until it absorbed almost half of all capital.   There may have to be some fees for the legal expenditures of defense and foreign affairs bureaucracy, but that would be a small bit in comparison and they should be voluntary or at least as small as possible.   That may be only half realist as well, but it used to be very real.

Here's a hypothetical question, do you believe that all land in the solar system and the universe in general is the commonwealth property of all?  If so, would you support extracting a tax from anyone who worked hard to get to said bodies and created wealth from them?  Nobody is living there to be displaced (that we know of), nobody is theoretically denied the right to go there and stake their own claims based on their ability to hold on to them.  I can't see the "damage" done to someone for developing off planet bodies, its not like most people would readily be able to move there and do it also without major investments of time and energy.

If so, do you deny that such a preemptive tax burden potential would stifle incentive to do the work and go there?    I see Georgism as nothing but an amusing dead end, suitable for European coffee shops and on the dole philosophers.

[FrankChodorov]

I just don't agree that land can't be owned by individuals with legally aquired title to it

I don't know who you are suggesting doesn't...

I believe that land can and should be owned by individuals but not at the expense of the superior labor-based property rights of those being excluded by retaining what they contribute no labor towards creating - economic rent.

It shouldn't be taxed either.

that is kinda like proclaiming there shouldn't be gravity...

even in an anarchy like Iceland the economic rent (a tax in kind but not in name) attaches to all locations as two or more people naturally compete for access to scarce locations (beyond Locke's proviso)

Somehow the US got along just fine without property taxes

did you know that the articles of confederation were based on property taxes?

what it was Constitutionally mandated to do rather than assuming there was some entitlement clause letting it balloon in power and taxing ability until it absorbed almost half of all capital

that is because the left is trying to address their perceived social justice issue in an arbitrary way rather than in a principled way like me and classical liberalism based on absolute rights to labor-based property and the right of self-ownership.

do you believe that all land in the solar system and the universe in general is the commonwealth property of all?

yes, common property of all as it pre-exists human labor...

would you support extracting a tax from anyone who worked hard to get to said bodies and created wealth from them?

only if their exclusive use did not leave "enough and as good in common for others"

do you deny that such a preemptive tax burden potential would stifle incentive to do the work and go there?

does the fact that no one owns there own land in Hong Kong but rather pays a land value tax based on their locational value "stifle the incentive to do the work" there?