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

royls_at_telus.net
Date: 10/01/04 

Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:19:40 GMT

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:55:07 -0400, jmh <j_m_h@cox.net> wrote:

>royls@telus.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:05:49 -0400, jmh <j_m_h@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>AS far as I
>>>can tell and you already conceded this point as well, your
>>>position is that no one can own Land or exclude another from
>>>using what is available for use--generally meaning not
>>>being used by another. You calim that the community or
>>>the goverment gets to charge a fee because it produces
>>>security in that use but who is the person being protected
>>>from?
>>
>> Anyone else who would want to use it.
>>
>>>Members of the community?
>>
>> Possibly.
>>
>>>The government?
>>
>> Unlikely.
>
>And why would that be the case.

Government doesn't actually use very much land, and tends to use the
same land for a long time. Unlike individuals, it is not contantly on
the lookout for opportunities to use land to make profits.

>>>But I wasn't talking aout the rent on land and the
>>>"advantage confered by use" may or may not be at all
>>>related to the network effect underlying the LVT
>>>approach.
>>
>> ?? Don't be so stupid. Of course it is.
>>
>>>If no one can own Land and only those who
>>>contrbitute to the production of some benefit can
>>>lay claim to it the it follows that a person using
>>>unused land
>>
>> ?? "Using unused land"? How would one do that?
>
>I'll merely quote you here: "?? Don't be so stupid. "
>I think it's pretty clear what meaning was intended
>to be even if the wording quite awkward.

OTC, it is not at all clear. What does it mean to be "using" land,
and how much time must have elapsed before the land one is using no
longer counts as "unused"?

>>>>>paying an access
>>>>>fee for using available land was.
>>>>
>>>>Access fees (rents) are inevitable whenever anyone or any group has
>>>>control over resources they are not personally using. That is a
>>>>_given_. So it cannot be the issue, unless you are positing an
>>>>alternative system of free personal use, in which case you need to
>>>>explain how you think it should be determined who gets to use each
>>>>piece of land. You can't just baldly assert that community recovery
>>>>of the land rent it creates violates some utopian notion of unlimited
>>>>personal freedom unless you propose an alternative method of land
>>>>allocation that does not violate it.
>>
>> I notice you have no answer to this.
>
>You're the one that claimed such ownership and the
>resulting demand for payment for use of something one
>did not create is the same as a protection racket.

But the community _does_ create the land rent, which is just what the
charge would be.

>If the service the government is charging for is
>protection then they can charge for that service
>independant of land--

The value of the service to the landholder is exactly the land rent:
if government auctioned off the protection service on that piece of
land, the price would be the land rent.

>they might have incentives to
>specialize geographichally but they clearly don't have
>any rights--by your own statements--or moral basis
>for tying those fees to land.

Garbage. Private providers have the right to charge what the market
will bear for their services, why not government?

>The community recovery of land rents, under the LVT
>approach is not the same as a pure access fee.

Then I'm not sure what you mean by a "pure access fee."

>What I have argued is that the creation of some
>collective ownership right in Land in order to
>address the problem of the private internaliztion of
>what are public benefits is not morally justified
>if one is going to assert any labor theory of
>property as you have done.

It's not a collective ownership right, but collective administration
and implementation of an equal right to access.
 
>>>>>note, I'm not talking about using
>>>>>to participate in the local economy but simply use.
>>>>
>>>>As long as no one else wants to use the same land, there is no fee.
>>>>If more than one person wants to use a parcel of land, how else should
>>>>it be allocated than by payment of a fee? Arm wrestling?
>>>
>>>How about first com efirst served?
>>
>> Not arm wrestling, but an old-fashioned footrace, instead? Or maybe a
>> conquistador-style flag-planting? ROTFL!!
>
>Clearly since we notice that no one ever actaully
>waits in a line anywhere unless the security guard
>is there to enforce such adherance to rules of
>mutual respect.

You still haven't explained how being first to use a resource (even
leaving aside the fact that that is never the case in practice,
anyway) confers the privilege of denying others the same right of
access one so eagerly arrogates to oneself.
 
>>>>>Logically one should distigish between these
>>>>>two aspects which is why I've been saying the
>>>>>issue of Land Value is different than mere
>>>>>use of the land.
>>>>
>>>>Land has no value if only one person (or no one at all) wants to use
>>>
>>>If one person wants to use the Land it's got value--
>>
>> No, that is just flat false. It has _utility_.
>
>Which is value to the person regardless of whether or not
>they have to pay someone else to use it and that value
>is not necessarily derived from any external souce
>such as a nearby or surrounding community.

You are equivocating. In economics, the power to satisfy human
desires is called utility, not value. Value depends on the
possibility of trade.

>Are you making the claim that value is merely
>market price?

Where there is a market price, it is incoherent to claim that value is
anything else. Where there is no market price (i.e., no consensual
transaction), it is incoherent to claim that value exists, or has some
arbitrary magnitude, based on one individual's utility alone.
  
-- Roy L

Relevant Pages

  • A trip into Indias rebel-held territory
    ... government can't stamp out ... This land has been occupied. ... Mr. Purusiti has title to five acres outside the village of Bikrampur, ...
    (soc.culture.pakistan)
  • Royal Wealth (continued)
    ... The Crown Property Bureau and How it Got That Way: ... The history of the land owned by the Thai monarchy, ... The government funds flowing into the PPB increased to about 15 percent of state ... In bargaining over his diminished role, King ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
    ... Somehow I think the land ownership people ... a society or for the society as a whole? ... as the politicians will effectively be the private owners. ... I understand your disillusionment with government, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • PRACTICAL POLITICS No.167
    ... PRACTICAL POLITICS July 2008 Issue No.167 ... "Last month's General Election changed the Government, ... public collection of the location value of land, ... economy will continue to flounder. ...
    (uk.politics.economics)
  • Re: Income from a tax on land.
    ... >Is the market value of the exclusive usage privilege of a plot of land ... disclosed automatically as part of the process by which government ... >> up as land rent, to which all have an equal claim. ...
    (sci.econ)