what would economic rent be

[FrankChodorov]

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

land "socialism" is the collective ownership of land whether or not the collective is the state as the delegated authority or not is another question.

ownership of land is actually a bundle of rights - use, possession, exclusion, transferability, economic rent.

what I am suggesting is bundled ownership rights of use, possession, exclusion, & transferability remain in private hands but the economic rent be owned in common as an individual equal access right inorder to uphold the absolute right of self-ownership of those being excluded.

common and collective ownership are actually NOT the same.

one is an individual equal right while the other is a joint right that is inherently unequal.

[Dreepa]

questions have not been answered.

[David]

I think I finally understand at least part of the economic rent due to the library analogy.
But property is an integral part of nature, and this includes humans.  Not just real estate, but any property.  I wonder how many thefts and murders occur in collectivist countries over clothing or tools.  Yes it is true that there is a limited amount of land, and that some people will never own land.  But the same could be said of a bmw, or a one pound diamond, or a silo full of corn. 
Property rights are human rights.  I don't own land.  But I have never been homeless.  Nor have I ever been not able to go shopping.  Yet my landlord, and the owner of the stores I go to do not rightfully owe the gov't, local, or federal anything. 
There is no thing on this planet, that is not limited in some way or another.  Some things are more limited than others, but I fail to see how real estate property is fundamentally different than a field of corn in a silo, or an automobile. 
I welcome debate, but please, in english.  thanks.   

[Kevin Bean]

The one main problem I haven't worked out with Georgist philosophy is this:

What if an individual encloses the commons (for instance builds a private home) but he does not demand exclusive use.  For instance, he puts out a "welcome all" doormat.  Since he is not demanding exclusive use, wouldn't he no longer have to pay the economic rent portion?

Could someone more educated in Georgist land theories help me out here?  Much appreciated.

[ladyattis]

phase #1 - assessors only assess land values and not buildings (capital).

Easy enough to get around, we do this all time. It's called paying them off. Don't think this won't happen, Mr Frank? Lets see here in little old Kansas with property taxes. There have been a few significant cases where tax assessors have been found to assess one house and/or land property lower than another, despite market value. Yet in turn will assess another property/house way higher than the market value. In some cases, there has been evidence that such assessments have been based on bribery, but others have been based on pure arbitrary attitude(s) of the assessor(s).

So, if we go under your system, what mathematical model shall we should to properly assess the value of the land? And remember, in your system there can be no such thing an an absolute zero valued land, because even mucky swamp land can be converted, with proper technology, into verdant fields for commerce. Thus, the value of the land becomes solely dependent on the technological ability to use it. Ergo, your value on the land will change per the technological paradigm, or you must find another measure of land value. One suggestion, atleast from me, would to be to look at population density per region and make the assessment based on that value per square mile(kilometer, etc.. whatever measure you like), and not assess each parcel individually unless requested [in such cases where the land is too hazardous to cultivate]. Otherwise, your system will not work efficiently and you will have the same arbitrary assessments made on property taxes as you will in your LVT.

phase #2 - landowners share the economic rent direct and equally with their neighbors.

How you ensure each neighbor gets a fair cut of the rent? None. The only method is banking, possibly an escrow account, which although is ideal for such a distributed economic penance, it has problems. The biggest problem is the escrow account can be tampered with, and thus the bankers in question now have each and every person [from the person paying the rent to the person getting the rent] by the balls. They can make the rules for economic rent, how it flows, when it's accrued, who gets it, and etc. So, in this model, economic rent in distribution is unfeasible. And to expect in good faith a land owner or any owner to pay fairly [e.g. equally] to each neighbor is impractical and open to corruption.

Conclusion: Economic rent is arbitrary, or more specifically can be assessed arbitrarily, which implies the lack of a moral and/or economic invariance in its principle(s). Without such invariance, and robustness in prediction of its own value per all possible cases [in all possible worlds], it is a faulty concept, categorically. And that its distribution and acquisition is unfeasible under any model for the simple fact that it is easily, from the start, to disrupt and corrupt with little or no time invested.


Furthermore, Economic Rent presupposes a zero sum game in the same view as its antithetical viewpoint of Marxism, which gives a clue that both theories since they share the same zero sum game model for economics, which has been refuted time and time again historically and in mathematical modeling of economics, that both are wrong, in our case Economic Rent concept(s) are wrong. It also hinges on the faulty concept of natural law. Natural law in this case cannot pre-exist rational agents, because of this, it cannot be called natural law in that Nature does not hand down, or etch said laws and/or principles within the human genome/condition/etc. If there is no natural law, then there can be no Economic rent since it is based on natural law, specifically Locke's prescriptions on it. Ultimately, this is why Economic Rent fails at its core rather than at its implementation, since it has no basis in economics, nature, and ethics. Essentially, Economic rent is the demand made by the weak upon the strong. It is a penance on those who are successful by those who fail. And that is a farce against any ethos based on success and individual excellence.

-- Bridget

[ladyattis]

land "socialism" is the collective ownership of land whether or not the collective is the state as the delegated authority or not is another question.

Wrong again, Frankie. You seem to think that it's okay to call yours common right, and theirs collective right. Yet you still use the state in the same exact functional form as the socialist, e.g. you use force to make everyone pay. And the socialists do the same thing. They also use the same model of centralized planning and execution to make this possible, too. So, it's like the old saying, "If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then it is a DUCK."

ownership of land is actually a bundle of rights - use, possession, exclusion, transferability, economic rent.

That theory is incorrect. Rights are invariant social principles in which one when left alone can do X. Rights don't come in bundles in that form, they come as the total sum of human action. That's why your theory fails from the start. In fact, I dare say most of Locke's theories are wrong from the get go since he was a cognitive dualist.

what I am suggesting is bundled ownership rights of use, possession, exclusion, & transferability remain in private hands but the economic rent be owned in common as an individual equal access right inorder to uphold the absolute right of self-ownership of those being excluded.

Nope, and there is no self-ownership.

one is an individual equal right while the other is a joint right that is inherently unequal.

There is no such thing as people being equal. Not even in a rational, free society.

-- Bridget

[FrankChodorov]

Yes it is true that there is a limited amount of land, and that some people will never own land.  But the same could be said of a bmw, or a one pound diamond, or a silo full of corn.

those are all produced via labor although diamonds occur naturally in nature.

I don't own land.  But I have never been homeless. 

but wherever you are you are either there by tacit approval (a gift) or are trespassing unless you pay someone for access.

so how can you claim to have a right of self-ownership if a right doesn't have to be gifted or purchased but rather you are born with?

I fail to see how real estate property is fundamentally different than a field of corn in a silo, or an automobile. 

you mean besides that there is no labor involved in produce land?

[FrankChodorov]

The one main problem I haven't worked out with Georgist philosophy is this:

What if an individual encloses the commons (for instance builds a private home) but he does not demand exclusive use.  For instance, he puts out a "welcome all" doormat.  Since he is not demanding exclusive use, wouldn't he no longer have to pay the economic rent portion?

Could someone more educated in Georgist land theories help me out here?  Much appreciated.

but wouldn't the laws of physics require exclusivity as two people can not occupy the same location at the same time?

[FrankChodorov]

there has been evidence that such assessments have been based on bribery

assessments are public record and done by private companies - why would a company want to jeopardize losing contracts for a few extra bucks?

what mathematical model shall we should to properly assess the value of the land?

the sales price of other similar lands...

How you ensure each neighbor gets a fair cut of the rent?

total assessed land value divided by citizens

you use force to make everyone pay

in anarchy it is just private thugs who violate the right of self-ownership collecting economic rent for landowners....no thanks

There is no such thing as people being equal. Not even in a rational, free society.

equal in the eyes of the law...

[Rocketman]

The one main problem I haven't worked out with Georgist philosophy is this:

What if an individual encloses the commons (for instance builds a private home) but he does not demand exclusive use.  For instance, he puts out a "welcome all" doormat.  Since he is not demanding exclusive use, wouldn't he no longer have to pay the economic rent portion?

Could someone more educated in Georgist land theories help me out here?  Much appreciated.

but wouldn't the laws of physics require exclusivity as two people can not occupy the same location at the same time?

Point goes to Frank.  But no karma.

I am gonna delete half these fuckin' comments.

Hopefully not one character at a time, as that would take days or even weeks.

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

I suppose how much would be something like your current property tax except the value of improvements to your parcel would be ignored and the value of your parcel itself would be the primary consideration.  And I still don't get the "who" part... I agree in principle with localizing the tax system as much as possible (if there's to be a tax system), but the sort of distributive decision-making such a system implies seems to require a coercively administered system of assessment, one that would seem particularly prone to corruption.

Is there a Tax Man in Georgistopia?  Who is he?

[FrankChodorov]

the sort of distributive decision-making such a system implies seems to require a coercively administered system of assessment, one that would seem particularly prone to corruption.

it is not the assessments that are coercive as they are just a reflection of the market - under what I propose they are less invasive because you never have to go into or even on anyone's property.

assessments are typically done via private companies according to competitive bids.
my local paper actually publishes the entire tax roll one a year.

Is there a Tax Man in Georgistopia?  Who is he?

what is a "tax man"?

[DC]

The one main problem I haven't worked out with Georgist philosophy is this:

What if an individual encloses the commons (for instance builds a private home) but he does not demand exclusive use.  For instance, he puts out a "welcome all" doormat.  Since he is not demanding exclusive use, wouldn't he no longer have to pay the economic rent portion?

Could someone more educated in Georgist land theories help me out here?  Much appreciated.

but wouldn't the laws of physics require exclusivity as two people can not occupy the same location at the same time?

Point goes to Frank.  But no karma.

I think you need to read that again. He said a welcome all doormat. They don't have to share the same exact spot. They could fit lots of people in the area fenced in.

[DC]

the sort of distributive decision-making such a system implies seems to require a coercively administered system of assessment, one that would seem particularly prone to corruption.

it is not the assessments that are coercive as they are just a reflection of the market - under what I propose they are less invasive because you never have to go into or even on anyone's property.

assessments are typically done via private companies according to competitive bids.
my local paper actually publishes the entire tax roll one a year.

The assessment isn't coercive it's the collecting of the tax thats coercive. Less invasive coercive is still coercive.

The private companies are appointed by the planning board that is also appointed. This is a poor system .

[BaRbArIaN]

The one main problem I haven't worked out with Georgist philosophy is this:

What if an individual encloses the commons (for instance builds a private home) but he does not demand exclusive use.  For instance, he puts out a "welcome all" doormat.  Since he is not demanding exclusive use, wouldn't he no longer have to pay the economic rent portion?

Could someone more educated in Georgist land theories help me out here?  Much appreciated.

but wouldn't the laws of physics require exclusivity as two people can not occupy the same location at the same time?

I love this guy.  "I can't stand in the same space as you at the same time!  Pay me!!!!"  LOL.  That's land socialism in a nutshell baby.

[FrankChodorov]

the sort of distributive decision-making such a system implies seems to require a coercively administered system of assessment, one that would seem particularly prone to corruption.

it is not the assessments that are coercive as they are just a reflection of the market - under what I propose they are less invasive because you never have to go into or even on anyone's property.

assessments are typically done via private companies according to competitive bids.
my local paper actually publishes the entire tax roll one a year.

The assessment isn't coercive it's the collecting of the tax thats coercive. Less invasive coercive is still coercive.

the collection of the economic rent is justified as it is in response to the coercion that results from private use of land (a fixed supply) that compels the exclude to labor for that which is the basis for the free excercise of the right of self-ownership.