Frank's Georgist shtick . . . perversion?

[FrankChodorov]

It's due to the practical effect of receiving something one doesn't have to work for.

fine...then just change the fundamental tenet of libertarianism - the right of self-ownership - because a right does not have to be purchased or be gifted.

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.

using the term "worked for" is very telling...

the landowner contributes ZERO labor (work for) to creating the economic rent.

1. they don't actually produce the land
2. they don't create the UNIMPROVED land values
3. in a pure economic rent sharing scheme there would be no purchase price to land

privilege (law-based property rights) is a license to STEAL the wealth (law-based property) of those you exclude.

the point can easily be illustrated by saying that no one needs to pay an annual "property tax" (read: land value tax) until title transfer at death or sale...let's say the land in question was freely homesteaded 50 years ago via first appropriation and has appreciated $100K, no taxation is allowed on labor-based capital created on the land (buildings), and the socially created land values ($100K) which are created by the positive externalities of the landowner's neighbors and public infrastructure - what specific "work" did the landowner perform to receive the $100K that can only come from the labor-based property rights of those you exclude???

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.

I am suggesting that libertarians - like some did in the past like Nock and Chodorov - should embrace this position because they know they are upholding the absolute right of self-ownership of those they are excluding and thus voluntarily agree to share the economic rent.

[FrankChodorov]

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.

no, not "self-ownership" but rather the RIGHT of self-ownership...

the premise is that inorder to exist in a natural human state you by definition have to occupy 3D space with your feet touching the landed surface of the earth *somewhere*...how can you not agree with this premise?

[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.

no, not "self-ownership" but rather the RIGHT of self-ownership...

the premise is that inorder to exist in a natural human state you by definition have to occupy 3D space with your feet touching the landed surface of the earth *somewhere*...how can you not agree with this premise?

Yes we all 'touch the ground' somewhere, Frank.  It is what you have to say about that phenomena that I disagree with.

[maineiac]

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.

no, not "self-ownership" but rather the RIGHT of self-ownership...

the premise is that inorder to exist in a natural human state you by definition have to occupy 3D space with your feet touching the landed surface of the earth *somewhere*...how can you not agree with this premise?

Yes we all 'touch the ground' somewhere, Frank.  It is what you have to say about that phenomena that I disagree with.

If self ownership is "gifted," how about getting that square yard of earthspace "gifted," as well?

Another grave problem with Frank's vision of utopia is the coercive machinery inherently demanded for its fruition . . . or maybe not. Count me among those who cannot read a Frankpost past 6 lines.

Hell, I am tempted to say that Frank is being deliberately obtuse, a hopelessly pathological obfuscator . . .   

[FrankChodorov]

If self ownership is "gifted," how about getting that square yard of earthspace "gifted," as well?

how is self-ownership gifted?

isn't a right something we are born with as humans?

[maineiac]

If self ownership is "gifted," how about getting that square yard of earthspace "gifted," as well?

how is self-ownership gifted?

isn't a right something we are born with as humans?

I thought you said that! Well, if self ownership is "claimed," then I also claim I owe NO man for the ground upon which I stand! . . . and what of the operations of your ideal government? Are they coercive?

[FrankChodorov]

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.

no, not "self-ownership" but rather the RIGHT of self-ownership...

the premise is that inorder to exist in a natural human state you by definition have to occupy 3D space with your feet touching the landed surface of the earth *somewhere*...how can you not agree with this premise?

Yes we all 'touch the ground' somewhere, Frank.  It is what you have to say about that phenomena that I disagree with.

sorry Alan I communicate with dozens of people and am too lazy to look it up...

what specifically do you think I have to say "about that phenomena" that you disagree with?

[FrankChodorov]

If self ownership is "gifted," how about getting that square yard of earthspace "gifted," as well?

how is self-ownership gifted?

isn't a right something we are born with as humans?

I thought you said that! Well, if self ownership is "claimed," then I also claim I owe NO man for the ground upon which I stand! . . . and what of the operations of your ideal government? Are they coercive?

beyond Locke's proviso the exclusive use of ground upon which you stand creates a monetary obligation on those you exclude - even in anarchy - that if collected by the exclusive user violates the right of self-ownership of those you excluded.

[burnthebeautiful]

As I understand it, you're suggesting you don't own yourself if you're on somebody else's property, which I disagree with. Just because you have to follow the land-owners rules as a condition of being there doesn't mean that you don't own yourself.

[FrankChodorov]

As I understand it, you're suggesting you don't own yourself if you're on somebody else's property, which I disagree with. Just because you have to follow the land-owners rules as a condition of being there doesn't mean that you don't own yourself.

not that you "don't own yourself"...

you have no absolute RIGHT of self-ownership because the landowner has a legal and monetary claim on your wages while you are there or that right is being gifted to you.

[eques]

As I understand it, you're suggesting you don't own yourself if you're on somebody else's property, which I disagree with. Just because you have to follow the land-owners rules as a condition of being there doesn't mean that you don't own yourself.

not that you "don't own yourself"...

you have no absolute RIGHT of self-ownership because the landowner has a legal and monetary claim on your wages while you are there or that right is being gifted to you.

Hold on.

Back up the truck.

Explain exactly how a landowner has a legal and monetary claim on my wages while I'm standing on his land!  How does that work?  Even if I'm occupying land that isn't titled or deeded to me, that does not entitle anybody else to my labor or the fruits of it!  The only exception is that of an explicit contract.

Also, clarify what "wages" are.  Is it just "income?"  If so, why not use the more modern and commonly-understood term?  If not, and wages are the direct result of labor, why exclude other forms of income not directly derived from labor?

[FrankChodorov]

Explain exactly how a landowner has a legal and monetary claim on my wages while I'm standing on his land!

if you are standing on his land without paying then you are being gifted the right to stand there...you have no legal right to be there.

a right does not have to be gifted or purchased.

clarify what "wages" are

wages are the return on labor
economic rent is the return on land
economic interest is the return on capital

capital is just stored labor...

land, labor and capital are the means of production.

[maineiac]

Explain exactly how a landowner has a legal and monetary claim on my wages while I'm standing on his land!

if you are standing on his land without paying then you are being gifted the right to stand there...you have no legal right to be there.

a right does not have to be gifted or purchased.

clarify what "wages" are

wages are the return on labor
economic rent is the return on land
economic interest is the return on capital

capital is just stored labor...

land, labor and capital are the means of production.

Aha!!

I knew it was you that was using that "gifted" terminology!

You are pathological!

[eques]

Explain exactly how a landowner has a legal and monetary claim on my wages while I'm standing on his land!

if you are standing on his land without paying then you are being gifted the right to stand there...you have no legal right to be there.

a right does not have to be gifted or purchased.

clarify what "wages" are

wages are the return on labor
economic rent is the return on land
economic interest is the return on capital

capital is just stored labor...

land, labor and capital are the means of production.

Aha!!

I knew it was you that was using that "gifted" terminology!

You are pathological!

so you see you gifting a psychological diagnosis when you should be sharing your economic rent with him

[FrankChodorov]

Explain exactly how a landowner has a legal and monetary claim on my wages while I'm standing on his land!

if you are standing on his land without paying then you are being gifted the right to stand there...you have no legal right to be there.

a right does not have to be gifted or purchased.

clarify what "wages" are

wages are the return on labor
economic rent is the return on land
economic interest is the return on capital

capital is just stored labor...

land, labor and capital are the means of production.

Aha!!

I knew it was you that was using that "gifted" terminology!

You are pathological!

if someone is standing on your land and you tacitly approve then in essence you are gifting that person the right.

otherwise you can demand payment or force them off...