what would economic rent be

[Dreepa]

So... let's say the NH decided to go the way of Mr George.

How much economic rent would it be?

Would the whole state get assessed (and by whom)?
then divide it up?  sorta like property tax?

(no philosphy.. just how would it be done)

[aries]

Can you explain this concept?

I'm tempted to say $30.12 real dollars.

[KBCraig]

So... let's say the NH decided to go the way of Mr George.

How much economic rent would it be?

*shrug*
Zero, for me, because I would never live under such a system.

Kevin

[FrankChodorov]

So... let's say the NH decided to go the way of Mr George.

How much economic rent would it be?

Would the whole state get assessed (and by whom)?
then divide it up?  sorta like property tax?

(no philosphy.. just how would it be done)

it is actually quite simple.

everything remains the same except:

phase #1 - assessors only assess land values and not buildings (capital).
phase #2 - landowners share the economic rent direct and equally with their neighbors.

[FrankChodorov]

So... let's say the NH decided to go the way of Mr George.

How much economic rent would it be?

*shrug*
Zero, for me, because I would never live under such a system.

if you live in NH you already do...

[Lloyd Danforth]

Can you explain this concept?

I'm tempted to say $30.12 real dollars.

$30.12  works for me

[David]

The problem isn't taxes, or any other name you want to call it.  The problem is the force and threats of force used to make people comply. 
Whether gov't provides something, or the free market, some very important things will still be provided.
The reality is those that need something the most will pay for it then build it.  Those who find ways to get others to help pay for it, (roads and other 'natural' manopolies the gov't claims) by offering a value added bonus will be wildly successfull.

[FrankChodorov]

The problem isn't taxes, or any other name you want to call it.  The problem is the force and threats of force used to make people comply. 
Whether gov't provides something, or the free market, some very important things will still be provided.
The reality is those that need something the most will pay for it then build it.  Those who find ways to get others to help pay for it, (roads and other 'natural' manopolies the gov't claims) by offering a value added bonus will be wildly successfull.

the use of force to defend against illegitimate force is justified.

landowners who capitalizes on the positive externalities created by public infrastructure are using force against those they exclude...

[maineiac]

OK, I get it, Frank.

You are proposing the abolition of the status quo in favor of a coercive collective!

[mrapplecastle]

an example of a collective would be if I created a book store for everyone, no membership, anyone can come and get a book, so long as I give them permission  i.e. a modern public library

if the book store was owned in common, you would not need anyones permission to go and get a book and if you didnt want to return it, you could pay ER for it

i think my example is correct when referring to ER   

[FrankChodorov]

OK, I get it, Frank.

You are proposing the abolition of the status quo in favor of a coercive collective!

the status quo is collective coercion today...

an illegitimate state grants privileges to allow one group (the excluders) to exploit another group (the excluded) via the collecting economic rent backed by force (collective coercion) which violates the rights of self-onwership.

legitimate local governance on the other hand recognizes the rightful exclusive private use of what starts out as owned in common but requires the sharing of the economic rent (whe it appears) directly and equally between those being excluded to uphold the excluded's absolute right of self-onwership.

most libertarians seem to be under the delusion that force is immoral - it is not...it is amoral.

illegitimate authority's unjust use of force is immoral.

legitimate authority's just use to prevent a theft (defensively) is just.

[FrankChodorov]

an example of a collective would be if I created a book store for everyone, no membership, anyone can come and get a book, so long as I give them permission  i.e. a modern public library

if the book store was owned in common, you would not need anyones permission to go and get a book and if you didnt want to return it, you could pay ER for it

i think my example is correct when referring to ER   

yikes...I think it is a tad confused.

the library itself (including the books) is owned collectively...if I wanted to use the building for anything other than the intended purpose I would have to get permission for each of the other owners (consensus) or their delegated authority.

the information contained within the books itself maybe part of the social commons depending on copyright law.

copyright is the monopolization of written language for a period of time where the consumer of the written material is subject to economic rent (plus costs for distribution, printing advertising, etc) - in the case of a library they pay it and you get to borrow the book to freely access the information although you can't reporoduce it.

if you don't return it you owe the library the cost which represents the economic rent (plus other costs as cited above) paid by the libarary to purchase the book

once the copyright has ended it reverts back to the social commons where it is freely accessible.

this is similar in some ways to our right of ways which are common rights equal to individuals where we can freely excercise our freedom of speech rights so long as we are not infringing on anyone else's equal right of ways (you have to keep moving on a sidewalk).

the right of ways themselves are contained within the sidewalk but the sidewalk itself is collective property.

[Dreepa]

I am gonna delete half these fuckin' comments.

How much would it be.... and who would I give how much money to?

[FrankChodorov]

I am gonna delete half these fuckin' comments.

How much would it be.... and who would I give how much money to?

phase 1

the same as what you are paying now but just on your land value.

those not using their location productively in the urban core will be incentive to develop it into income producing property.

housing supply will go up in urban core areas and land values will shrink everywhere else.

phase 2

instead of paying the government you pay your neighbor - no need for social services.

[BaRbArIaN]

...and this *isn't* land socialism?