Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!

From: jmh (j_m_h_at_cox.net)
Date: 09/12/04 

Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 10:39:41 -0400

Mark Monson wrote:
> "jmh" <j_m_h@cox.net> wrote in message news:6OE0d.80$Ss2.63@lakeread07...
>
>
>>The fact that the community then takes the money and spends
>>it elsewhere, which may or may not be valuable expenditures
>>for everyone, is beside the point. Your claim was that
>>charging for access to land was the same as a protection
>>racket. The fact that the some public authority does this
>>doesn change anything; where did the right to charge for
>>access to nature come from?
>>
>>You are being selective in your concerns about why
>>ownership grants a claim to output. If it's illegit for
>>a person to own land and demand some compensation for
>>access then it's not fair for a group to attempt that
>>either--neither the person nor the group created the
>>land so neither can claim it from a producer's right
>>standpoint. I realize that the georgists are really
>>interested in land value--which is a slightly differnt
>>concept the they still enforce and claim an ownership
>>right and require a person pay a fee to access the
>>land.
>>
>>What's the real difference here in terms of charging
>>for access to land?
>
>
> Henry George recognized the essential truth that liberty demands land be free to
> use. The Single Tax on land rents is a way to accomplish this.

But the calim was that charging for access to land--
something no one produces--is the same as a protection
racket by the mob in the case of claiming a share of
output resulting from the combination of Land, Labor
and Capital. The fact that "community" charges that
fee doen't change the fact that the community also
had no part in creating the land so where does it's
right to charge the access fee derive from.

I'm not that opposed to a public financing system
based on land value taxes, and people have suggested
they work quite well. Apparently as well as when we
currently have based on the existing data from localities
that have implemented them. That's not my gripe about
Roy's statements; my gripe was that he is selective
in applying his moral standard.

> Think of it this way:
>
> Every site is open for bid and every year the collected bids are divided equally
> among all citizens. This is zero sum. A person who uses an averaged valued share
> of land neither pays for land use nor gets paid from land users. Net rent will be
> paid only by those who use more than an average valued share of land. Net rent
> will be received only by those who use less than an averaged valued share.

Mark, did you take a look at the context of this subthread
between myself, Albert and Roy--with a little Rob V
tossed in for fun? That discussion was about owners of
factor inputs and their rights to claim a portion of
the total output--but as Roy, then Rob and now you
entered the picture new elements were introduced having
little to nothing to do with my part of the discussion but
all directed at me. Ne of the reason usenet can be either
highly annoying or quite amusing--depending on my mood at
the time;-)

Also, you describe the approach completely differently from
the justification describe by Roy, who argued the
"community" provides various goods and services in exchange
for the fee collected and not a cash payment back to all
members of the group charged the fee. To the extent that
a fee for service approach to public services is possible
I like your description better.

jmh

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dont Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!
    ... >> others rent for what he never produced, the community does not claim ... >> to own the land. ... the fee only arises when more than one person wants to ... There is no rent on land that only one person wants to ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: reasoned argument v. religious true belief
    ... Land is almost always ... often to escape the community, ... You can't encourage discoverers by telling them they can ... "And we can do the same thing with the land, people can trade ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: automated reply to Georgist spams
    ... Land is almost always ... often to escape the community, ... You can't encourage discoverers by telling them they can ... "And we can do the same thing with the land, people can trade ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: in reply to the Georgist spammer
    ... they invariably claim that recovery of publicly created land ... often to escape the community, ... You can't encourage discoverers by telling them they can ... "And we can do the same thing with the land, people can trade ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: automated reply to Georgist spams
    ... they invariably claim that recovery of publicly created land ... often to escape the community, ... You can't encourage discoverers by telling them they can ... "And we can do the same thing with the land, people can trade ...
    (sci.econ)