Frank's Georgist shtick . . . perversion?

[BaRbArIaN]

His grasp of realty is as tenuous as his grasp of reality.    Pie in the sky socialist dreams that will never mean anything outside of a repressive, corrupt regime that pretends they abide by it.

[eques]

Frank: I don't think I follow you from "self-ownership" to "the withholding of economic rent is a violation of somebody else's right to self-ownership."  Can you perhaps illustrate how you get from A to B there?  I think I have an inkling, however--it has something to do with land being some sort of special class of property.  However, I don't think I accept that premise, so it's not really a surprise that I don't agree with the conclusion.

However, as you point out, absent Government in general, there's nothing preventing a community from self-organizing into what you describe while another community self-organizes into something I'd be more likely to participate in.  As long as the members of your community don't attempt to force its ways on the members of mine, and vice versa--that is, as long as we can continue trading! 

And Roycerson: thanks for your efforts, but I think I have a problem extracting meaning due to Frank's overall style--when he types something out, the meaning is far from transparent to me.  So the copy-paste helped a bit... but... oi.  Frank.  Oi. 

[burnthebeautiful]

As I understand it, he believes land is collectively owned by everybody. So if you're refusing to share your property with your neighbor, you're violating your neighbors property rights (because your neighbors own your property, according to Frank), and you should have to pay  your neighbors rent as compensation for using their property.

[FrankChodorov]

As I understand it, he believes land is collectively owned by everybody.

collective ownership is a group right
ownership in common is an individual right

they are not the same.

[FrankChodorov]

I don't think I follow you from "self-ownership" to "the withholding of economic rent is a violation of somebody else's right to self-ownership."  Can you perhaps illustrate how you get from A to B there?

sure...

1. the fundamental tenet of libertarianism is the right of self-ownership.
2. a right is something we are born with which doesn't have to be purchased or gifted.
3. inorder to exist we have to simultaneously occupy 3D space somewhere.

therefore if all inhabitable locations are legally owned then there is literally no place you can stand to excercise your absolute right to self-ownership.

absent Government in general, there's nothing preventing a community from self-organizing into what you describe while another community self-organizes into something I'd be more likely to participate in.  As long as the members of your community don't attempt to force its ways on the members of mine

the claim I am making is that unless the economic rent is shared directly and equally between neighbors in a local community like I advocate that even in anarchy the private exclusive use of land beyond Locke's proviso denies the absolute right of self-ownership of those being excluded.

[FrankChodorov]

Frank, I would appreciate any critique you may have of my understanding of this topic.

One of the purposes of economic rent is to prevent speculation and land grabbing by making it unprofitable?

For example, let's say a farmer has 1000 acres. The economic rent is $1 per acre, or $1000 total. He earns $2 per acre via agriculture for a net of $2000. His profit would be $1000 after paying the economic rent due to his neighbors. Correct?

Now let's say the farmer still has 1000 acres, but only farms 500 of those acres. He still earns $2 per acre, but now is only netting $1000 because he isn't fully utilizing the land that is claimed. In this example he would have zero profit.

This scenario would appear to prevent land investors or speculators from purchasing the best land and sitting on it hoping to sell it for a profit later.

If you have ever played SimCity this kind of makes sense. As you run out of land, scarcity, you rezone to a higher value or density. Now in SimCity the old houses, factories, and farms get bulldozed, and new higher capacity buildings get built in their place. How would this work in the real world?

the only purpose of sharing economic rent is to adhere to the fundamental tenet of libertarianism - the absolute right of self-ownership - so we can have a society with the greatest amount of EQUAL freedom for the greatest number of individuals.

but yes from a practical point of view we uncouple wages from being in direct competition with the return on land (economic rent)...land cost, housing and rents fall - while wages and employment rates rise at the same time that sprawl is ended.

this was the question that Henry George sought to answer in his seminal book written in 1880 called "Progress and Poverty"...why was there so much poverty in the face of so much material progress?

http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp0.htm

his answer: the private collection of socially created land values

[FrankChodorov]

His grasp of realty is as tenuous as his grasp of reality.    Pie in the sky socialist dreams that will never mean anything outside of a repressive, corrupt regime that pretends they abide by it.

socialism is the collective ownership (a state being a collective that has delegated authority to representatives that are elected or otherwise come to power) of the means of production (land, labor and capital).

#1 - I advocate the absolute private ownership of labor and capital

#2 - I also advocate the conditional private ownership of land with the sharing of economic rent (owned in common as an individual equal access right) when it appears so as to not violate #1.

where exactly have I argued for the collective ownership of anything as a group right or positive liberty (forcing someone to provide a product of labor to anyone else)???

[eques]

I don't think I follow you from "self-ownership" to "the withholding of economic rent is a violation of somebody else's right to self-ownership."  Can you perhaps illustrate how you get from A to B there?

sure...

1. the fundamental tenet of libertarianism is the right of self-ownership.
2. a right is something we are born with which doesn't have to be purchased or gifted.
3. inorder to exist we have to simultaneously occupy 3D space somewhere.

therefore if all inhabitable locations are legally owned then there is literally no place you can stand to excercise your absolute right to self-ownership.

I don't know that I agree that the owning or non-owning of land necessarily has anything to do with my right to self-ownership.  Can you be more clear on that point?

Right now, I live in an apartment and I don't own land.  I am able to occupy this 3D space and exercise my right to self-ownership to the fullest extent of my ability, if I so choose.  I may not be able to exercise my rights on my own parcel of land, but that's primarily because I haven't (for a number of reasons) created the opportunity for myself.

I guess I just don't follow how owning land is necessarily a natural right along with the right to life, liberty, and justly-acquired property.  Furthermore, the legal ownership of all habitable land does not preclude the possibility of multiple ownership or subdivision.

Furthermore, I don't see how compensation in the form of shared economic rent necessarily restores my rights (one, because I don't quite see how they've been injured; and two, I still don't own any land afterwards).

Finally, from a practical standpoint, how does it benefit those who do not own land to be receiving the sharing of economic rent?  How would you guard the demands of the excluded from increasing irrationally at the expense of the excluders?

absent Government in general, there's nothing preventing a community from self-organizing into what you describe while another community self-organizes into something I'd be more likely to participate in.  As long as the members of your community don't attempt to force its ways on the members of mine

the claim I am making is that unless the economic rent is shared directly and equally between neighbors in a local community like I advocate that even in anarchy the private exclusive use of land beyond Locke's proviso denies the absolute right of self-ownership of those being excluded.

And I was just making the point that you can do it your way, and I'll do it mine--vote with our feet, as it were.  To a very real extent, if I don't believe my rights are being violated, where is the complaint?  (That is to say, I consider myself to be a rational adult--I'm not referring to irrational/immature adults or children as yet unaware of their rights.)  Now, it may very well be the case that I am currently ignorant of the violation of my rights, but this case is different in that the supposed violation has been explained to me and I still don't quite see exactly how it is a violation.

[FrankChodorov]

I don't know that I agree that the owning or non-owning of land necessarily has anything to do with my right to self-ownership.  Can you be more clear on that point?

if in order to exist (self) you have to occupy 3D space (land) somewhere and if all somewheres are already owned by someone else then you have to pay someone to stand somewhere then you can NOT have a right of self-ownership because a right does not have to purchased or gifted - we are born with them as humans.

to not agree with this you have to:

-believe you can exist without occupying 3D space...do you?
-believe that all inhabitable lands are not all legally owned...do you?
-believe that you have to purchase or have you rights gifted to you...do you?

Right now, I live in an apartment and I don't own land.  I am able to occupy this 3D space and exercise my right to self-ownership to the fullest extent of my ability

if you paid for access to the land that the apartment sits on or have it gifted then you don't have a right of self-ownership because a right does not have to be purchased or gifted.

I don't see how compensation in the form of shared economic rent necessarily restores my rights (one, because I don't quite see how they've been injured; and two, I still don't own any land afterwards).

because paying for a place to occupy means you have no right of self-ownership...

how does it benefit those who do not own land to be receiving the sharing of economic rent?

because no matter where anyone else has exclusive use of the earth via privilege and not as the result of labor you are not economcially harmed so your right of self-ownership is intact and so is theirs...

[SeanSchade]

Interesting useless fact...

If every person in America was entitled to a piece of land...

United States total area: 3,537,441 square miles
Population: 295,734,134
Equals 0.011961558012102857223779247612993 (square miles)  per person
Or 30,980.293 (square meters) per person
1 acre = 4 046.85642 square meter
7.6553971242696077663165524414627 acres per person

If you didn't care where you lived everyone could have just over 7 acres of land.

[error]

Yes, now who decides who gets which 7 acres?

[SeanSchade]

Yes, now who decides who gets which 7 acres?

Well if the government has any say in the matter...look where we PUT the Native Americans.

[eques]

I don't know that I agree that the owning or non-owning of land necessarily has anything to do with my right to self-ownership.  Can you be more clear on that point?

if in order to exist (self) you have to occupy 3D space (land) somewhere and if all somewheres are already owned by someone else then you have to pay someone to stand somewhere then you can NOT have a right of self-ownership because a right does not have to purchased or gifted - we are born with them as humans.

to not agree with this you have to:

-believe you can exist without occupying 3D space...do you?
-believe that all inhabitable lands are not all legally owned...do you?
-believe that you have to purchase or have you rights gifted to you...do you?

I see.  The missing link in my understanding was that having to pay to "stand" somewhere is the violation.  The conclusion makes me uncomfortable, however.  It's not just that I might have to pay into a community as a land-owner.  It's due to the practical effect of receiving something one doesn't have to work for.  It's the whole "entitlement" angle that makes me uneasy.

I don't know if this is logically sound or what, but I've never believed that I'm entitled to anything.  That is to say, I don't deserve something I haven't earned, be it respect, property, money, or what have you.  Furthermore, if somebody somehow determines that economic rent is due me, I'm not sure I want it.  I don't want to be dependent on somebody else's property no matter whether it's due to the good graces of somebody else or taken at the point of force.  (Of course, in my current situation, I am rather dependent upon the good graces of a few people... and I'm trying to work myself so that it's an arrangement on equal footing.)

how does it benefit those who do not own land to be receiving the sharing of economic rent?

because no matter where anyone else has exclusive use of the earth via privilege and not as the result of labor you are not economcially harmed so your right of self-ownership is intact and so is theirs...

You skipped over the question after that, which I restated above as a general objection to the conclusion.  I suppose the question isn't, "how does one determine what is collected?" but, "how does one determine who gets what?"  How exactly does one figure out if an individual is due $10 or $1000?

[AlanM]

Frank's whole system is based on a certain belief in what it means to have 'self ownership'. He sets a condition for self ownership, (a place to stand), as a premise, and goes from there. If you don't accept his theorem, he keeps insisting you don't understand. He can't accept the simple fact that few people accept his premise.

[eques]

Frank's whole system is based on a certain belief in what it means to have 'self ownership'. He sets a condition for self ownership, (a place to stand), as a premise, and goes from there. If you don't accept his theorem, he keeps insisting you don't understand. He can't accept the simple fact that few people accept his premise.

Well, that would explain why the conclusion makes me feel uneasy--it contains a premise that's not actually part of "self-ownership" proper.  Thanks for pointing out the aspect of his argument of which I only had a vague sense and didn't manage to suss out (and, as I'm sure it's been pointed out before in the forum, thanks for your patience as well).