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

From: michael price (nini_pad_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/19/04 

Date: 19 Oct 2004 00:29:53 -0700

The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<ckhtqo0d28@news3.newsguy.com>...
> michael price wrote:
>
> > royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<41603b10.8011978@news.telus.net>...
> >> On 22 Sep 2004 03:26:40 -0700, nini_pad@yahoo.com (michael price)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >royls@telus.net wrote in message
> >> >news:<413e1339.11504584@news.telus.net>...
> >> >> On 6 Sep 2004 08:31:39 -0700, nini_pad@yahoo.com (michael price)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >royls@telus.net wrote in message
> >> >> >news:<4134e19a.19476988@news.telus.net>...
> >> >> >> On 31 Aug 2004 03:40:54 -0700, nini_pad@yahoo.com (michael price)
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >royls@telus.net wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:<412e3cca.9637554@news.telus.net>...
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:29:40 -0700, "Michael Price"
> >> >> >> >> <nini_pad@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >"Ron Allen" <rallen2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >news:eYOWc.18310$cx.15800@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> In my opinion, the initial distribution of wealth
> >> >> >> >> >> is itself a redistribution scheme, because those
> >> >> >> >> >> who produce wealth are not the one's the wealth is
> >> >> >> >> >> being distributed to.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Then you should be able to show an instance of people
> >> >> >> >> > actually taking the
> >> >> >> >> >wealth away, and you can't.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I certainly can: landowners demand wealth from producers in
> >> >> >> >> return for access to what the producers would have had access to
> >> >> >> >> for free were it not for the landowners.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Absolute rot,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It is fact.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >nobody has the right to use whatever natural resources
> >> >> >> >they want to without payment.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Access to is not the same as right to use.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > I fail the difference between access and right to use.
> >> >>
> >> >> Access is a matter of liberty. Right is a matter of morality.
> >> >>
> >> > So the practical difference is zero.
> >>
> >> That depends on whether you regard the immoral as practical. If the
> >> landowner simply does nothing, the user gets access for free. But he
> >> is then just pocketing the rent in place of the landowner, and while
> >> he is at least contributing something to the community by why of
> >> production, he is not compensating the community for the benefits he
> >> is receiving,
> >
> > Which benefits the community did not provide.
>
> It seems that you continue to miss the point by beginning your
> analysis too late in the evolution of society. If you step back
> to the beginning you see that NOBODY provided the land and that
> all the land was "owned" by all the people, i.e. by the community.

  How so? When did "the community" have the exclusive right to use
the land? What is "the community"?

> The community has never been compensated for any loss of rights
> to access any of the land.

  Such a right is worth a lot less than the right to use it exclusively.

> So even if the community does nothing
> at all, the rent of the land is the property of the community.

  No, at best they deserve compensation for the lost right of access which
is worth less because it isn't exclusive.

> The occupier of the land will erect facilities of commerce
> (create _real_ capital) that will, by virtue of labor, produce
> goods. And those who seek to employ this capital (those who seek
> jobs) will relocate to be near the capital. And all those who
> desire these things will clump together and need to have a place
> to stand, a place to live. And thus we have competition for the
> surrounding location(s) and an increase in rent in those surrounding
> locations. The land owner/occupier of the land where the _real_
> capital was erected did not _provide_ any of the land either
> under the factory or around the factory, the land never belonged
> to the factory maker. Increases in land rent are caused by
> proximate population growth as people relocate to be near the
> factory.

  Some of them are. Most of them are actually cause by increased
productivity of other factors of production, making it worthwhile
to substitute land for them.

> And the cost of this clumping will be paid by the
> income from goods produced at the factory. As workers relocate to
> the factory area the rent of land where they had been will be
> reduced and the rent of land surrounding the factory will rise.
> That rent will be paid from wages and thus is a cost to the
> enterprise which will be born by the consumers of the product.
> The community nor the owner of the factory _earned_ this rent
> because rent is never earned.

  It is if you make it possible for the natural resources to be used in
production.

> Rent is a business expense to
> those who will create _real_ capital but it is not an
> onerous expense.
>
> >> and thus has no more _right_ than the landowner to deny
> >> others use of the land.
> >>
> >> >> >> People can obtain the _right_ to use natural resources by
> >> >> >> compensating the community for the lost opportunity.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So in other words you lied when you claimed that: "landowners
> >> >> > demand
> >> >> >wealth from producers in return for access to what the producers
> >> >> >would have had access to for free were it not for the landowners."
> >> >>
> >> >> No. The community, through government, administers possession and use
> >> >> of the land in any case, and is thus the ultimate landowner.
> >> >
> >> > And that means you lied. You claimed producers would not have to pay
> >> >and they would.
> >>
> >> ??? Garbage. You asked for an example of non-producers taking wealth
> >> under the current system. Under the current system, if the landowner
> >> does not demand any money in return for his zero contribution, the
> >> producer gets to use the land for free.
> >
> > You have not shown that the landowner did not contribute to gain
> > title to the land. Even if he didn't being able to settle definitively
> > the question of who gets the use of the land is a productive service.
> > If nobody does it the conflict over the land is disruptive and even
> > violent.
>
> Land owners do not "settle definitively the question of who gets the
> use of the land". That is done by a representative government in most
> places in the world, i.e. it is done by the community.

  Wrong and wrong. The majority of enforcement of land rights have nothing
to do with the State and in the absence of the State this carries on quite
effectively. On the rare occasions when the State jumps in it is as likely
to muddy the question as clear it up. And representative government is
not the community. Not by a long shot.

> And whether
> the land owner contributed in order to gain his privileged status is
> of little moment because he did not (in most cases) benefit anyone
> other than a previous land owner. The community has yet to be paid
> anything at all. And inheritance of land rights is obscene.
>
  How so?

> >>
> >> >> The only
> >> >> significant difference between paying rent to a private landowner and
> >> >> paying it to the community is that the services, infrastructure,
> >> >> amenities and opportunities that give the land its rental value are
> >> >> provided by the community, and not by the private landowner.
> >> >>
> >> > And that's good how?
> >>
> >> Value for value is just. Some people getting something for nothing
> >> while others get nothing for something is unjust. Justice is better
> >> than injustice.
> >
> > And that has nothing to do with the question. What difference does
> > it make if the amentities are provided by the private landowner and
> > he gets the rent?
>
> He will get the rent (interest actually) from the improvements in any
> case.

  How? If he puts in a road with no toll how does he get paid from interest?

> That is what he "provided" and he will get the return from it.
> Those things would be called _capital_ as opposed to land.
>
> >>
> >> >> >> But everyone naturally has access to all natural resources, unless
> >> >> >> they are forcibly denied it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why do you choose to call me a liar rather than understand the above?
> >> >>
> >> > Because you are a liar and I understood it perfectly.
> >>
> >> You are either a liar, or you still don't understand it.
> >>
>
> Good grief....
>
> >> >> >> >Even if you are a dedicated Georgist
> >> >> >> >the user of natural resources still has to pay.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The community always controls access to local resources as a matter
> >> >> >> of fact.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No they don't.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, they do.
> >> >
> >> > My knife says they don't.
> >>
> >> You had better shut your knife up, before it gets you killed. And if
> >> you do shut it up, that will prove you wrong just as much as your
> >> death would: the community _does_ control access to natural resources.
> >
> > So the "community's" rights are based on force and denial of
> > access, so how is that better than a private landowner? And if
> > I can enforce my claim to land that would prove you are wrong
> > and the community doesn't always control access. So would anyone
> > doing it anywhere in the world.
>
> The community will _almost_ inevitably control access to natural
> resources. The feudal system is no longer in operation in most of
> the world because it was supplanted by better control methods.

  Better in what way? Is there less war? Less taxes?

> It is now time to move along; time to separate that which is earned from
> that which is taken or bestowed.
>
> >>
> >> >> >Those who happen to be there and willing to defend
> >> >> >it control access.
> >> >>
> >> >> No. They have to also be _able_ to defend it to control access.
> >> >> That's the community.
> >> >
> >> > So if a single man is able to defend a claim he's a "community"?
> >>
> >> The community could easily dispossess him.
> >
> > Another factless assertion.
>
> I wonder why you would call this factless or assertion???

  Because it's an assertion without facts.

> It is the community, through the operation of government, that will
> remove a land occupier for not paying land taxes.

  So in other words the community couldn't remove him, government could.
But that's not true in all cases, there are plenty of places you could
hold on your own if you wanted.

> It is the
> community that will dispossess him if he acts in harmful ways to
> the community.
>
> >> His defense of his claim depends on the acquiescence of the
> >> community -- effectively, the delegation of its authority to him.
> >
> > And the communities defense of it's claim depends on his acquiescence.
>
> Nope. Don't pay the taxes and lose the land rights.

  No he will just lose the government's acceptance of those land rights.
Considering that the government's acceptance of it is neither neccesary
nor sufficent to grant it that is irrevelent.

> We will see that the majority is stronger than the individual.
>
  You assume that the majority is as willing to go to war as the individual.

> >>
> >> >> >How can the "community" control something when it
> >> >> >can't even be defined?
> >> >>
> >> >> For the purposes of allocating possession and use of land, the
> >> >> community is the set of all people living under the same land
> >> >> allocation authority (geographic sovereign).
> >> >>
> >> > So in other words it's not the community at all it's the
> >> >residents of a political State which presumably defines
> >> >itself.
> >>
> >> That is the practical reality of community.
> >
> > No it isn't liar. The State is not the community, it is force
> > and fraud.
>
> I the case of the USA, and most especially in the case of Republican
> USA you have a very good point. If there is no _informed_ consent
> then there is no community function. Voting for one of two lying
> prancing fascists pigs is not any real choice and it is thus force
> and fraud. But the USA was designed by the Constitution to be a
> representative republic or representative democracy in which the
> people were to be sovereign. It has devolved into a fascist banana
> republic with no bananas under Republican rule.

  In the case of everywhere I have a point. The State is not and
never can be the community.
>
> >> There are certainly many places where people who live across
> >> the street from one another are members of different communities,
> >> and consider themselves so.
> >>
> >> >> >What makes one person part of the community
> >> >> >and another not.
> >> >>
> >> >> Whether they live under the same land allocating authority.
> >> >>
> >> > And what makes them under the same land allocating authority?
> >>
> >> Where they live, and the geographic boundaries of the relevant
> >> authorities.
> >
> > Which are defined how? By force and fraud of the State.
>
> You might try looking at a map. In the USA the boundaries were put
> in place when the USA was a representative republic.

  And your point is what? That the force was guided by a vote? That
the fraud was organised on republican (small r) principals? What of
it?

> Unfortunately,
> the 16th and 17th amendments and the usurpation of power by the
> congress (limiting the membership to 435) destroyed the community
> of the USA and the states.

  And how would having more members make the system consensual?

> We are left with a one party system
> of propaganda.
>
> >>
> >> >> >> In a Georgist community, that control is exercised in the
> >> >> >> community's interest, making the community in effect the landowner
> >> >> >> that exacts payment from resource users (producers and consumers
> >> >> >> both).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And how is this "community" different from the State?
> >> >>
> >> >> The State is somewhat abstract:
> >> >
> >> > Real guns real murder, not all that abstract.
> >>
> >> Guns and murder don't define states. You are just spouting garbage.
>
> Not so. George Bush has all the guns and is actively increasing the
> sovereignty of his noble caste. Iraq is a state with no rights
> and Iran will soon be added if the chimp is reelected.
>
> >> >> the community is the set of actual people the state, as an
> >> >> institution, exercises its authority over.
> >> >
> >> > And those people vary with time and place.
> >>
> >> Of course.
> >>
> >> >> >I mean why would the community behave better than a private
> >> >> >landowner?
> >> >>
> >> >> When the community recovers rent, it is recovering the value of what
> >> >> _it_ provides.
> >> >
> >> > No it isn't.
>
> Yes. It is doing exactly that.

  Factless assertion.

> And as far as the _amount_ of rent
> collected, it makes no difference who gets the rent. If the "community"
> is actually "the community", then justice is served.

  And it isn't. The community is not the monopoly of force, that's the
State.

> If the "community"
> is actually some prancing fascist pig with "state" wrote on his forehead
> then justice is not being served. Unless there is a true informed consent
> from the people then government is not the community.
> The word _informed_ is not just being used to fill up the sentence. In
> the Republican order it is not just a withholding of information. In
> the Republican order it is a constant droning of lies and misinformation
> and a marketed system of priorities that robs the community of any means
> of self determination.
>
> > <delete assertion>
> >
> >> >God or chance provided the land.
> >>
> >> And the land had no value until the community came along.
> >>
> > It does if you could grow a single grain of rice or mine a single
> > gram of metal from it.
>
> This is a disagreement over "value". Roy (parroting the Austrians and
> neocons) says that you are talking about utility and that value only
> emerges when we see markets.

  What utter rubbish. Value exists whether it's tradable or not. The Austrians
never said it didn't.

> I am on your side in this one and I see
> value as encompassing utility until such time as we start to tread on
> non economic values. I value my mom but she ain't for sale and thus
> she has no _economic_ value.

  The hell she don't. Appologise to your mother at once.

> I value land where the berries and the
> fish and the other natural stuff will provide me with food and that
> _IS_ economic value. More fertile land will be selected by me
> because it reduces the amount of my labor that must be paid to get
> what I want and that is economic value. In which case the
> owner/occupier/user of the land is enjoying the benefits of the
> location uncontested and there is no rent. And that works so long as
> "there is enough and as good" for all people. An example is in:
>
> http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/TheBerryPatch.php
>
> >> >> When the private landowner captures and retains rent,
> >> >> he is appropriating the value of what the community provides.
> >> >> Community recovery of rent is thus a value-for-value transaction,
> >> >> while private capture of rent is parasitism.
> >> >>
> >> > So it's "valuable" when a community charges insists on a fee
> >> >by force by not when a landowner does it?
> >>
> >> ?? No, it's valuable either way, of course. I'm not sure how you are
> >> managing to deceive yourself on this point.
> >
> > I'm not, you are. You are claiming that one person doing something
> > is parasitical and another group is providing value for doing the
> > same job.
>
> Actually, if the rent is dispensed equally among all voters then there
> is no parasite but for the fact that man is a parasite on the land
> and always will be.

  Factless assertion again. The fact that you are part of this supposed
community doesn't mean you contributed equally to the value created by
it's existence even if that value equals the whole of land rent (which
it doesn't).

> We are interested in the comfort of man even if
> he is a parasite. The use of the word parasite is therefore reserved
> for one or more persons being a parasite on other _persons_.
>
> >> The issue is, who _gets_
> >> that value. Land value is land value no matter whether the community
> >> that creates it or a prasitic landowner gets it, just as blood is
> >> blood, whether it circulates to support the body's own life functions
> >> or is sucked out by a parasite.
> >>
> > But you are not suggesting that the "community that creates it" (even
> > assuming said commuity exists) gets the value, you are suggesting that
> > the State gets it.
>
> A good point that is defended by assuming a representative republic as
> "the state".

  No it doesn't. A representative republic would redistribute the loot
in ways that are not neccesarily even or just. The community is not that
which has the monopoly of force over the community.

> In the USA there is very good reason to look at "the state"
> as a parasite.
>
> >> >> >Why is
> >> >> >it better that the rent on natural resources go to those who hold a
> >> >> >monopoly of force over the community than people who only control
> >> >> >those resources?
> >> >>
> >> >> Because the use value of those resources (rent) comes from the
> >> >> community.
> >> >
> >> > No it doesn't, not if you define "the community" as "the set of
> >> >all people living under the same land allocation authority
> >> >(geographic sovereign)."
> >>
> >> Yes, it just flat-out _does_, certainly incomparably more so than it
> >> comes from the owner.
> >
> > space left for evidence to that assertion:
> >
>
> If you don't pay the taxes the land rights are awarded to someone who
> will pay the taxes. We conclude that "the state" defends land use
> for a fee.

  You conclude that. I conclude that it charges a fee and does nothing
to defend land use but only defends it's sole right to attack it.
  In any case not excluding doesn't create value that way.

> We then are at a point of determining whether "the state"
> is the community or a bunch of prancing fascist pig Republicans.

  The community is not the State. The State by definition is the monopoly
of force, which is arguably the exact opposite of the community.

> In either case, the use of the land in a specialized way (farm, factory,
> retail outlet, home, or whatever) that maximizes production is made
> possible by this enforcement.

  Which can be done without a State and has been.

> The individual holding title is not a necessary part of this scheme.

  The individual making the decision is.

> The value of oil is created by
> the community that uses it. The oil was not created by any man.
>
> >> There is admittedly some contribution by other
> >> communities based on the existence of recognized terms of trade,
> >> diplomatic resources, a broad industrial infrastructure, etc., but
> >> such inter-community contributions to land value are partly or wholly
> >> offset by each local community's spending on foreign embassies, mutual
> >> defense arrangements, trade dispute resolution mechanisms, etc.
> >
> > Then why the hell would the community agree to provide such, if the
> > cost more than the value recieved from them? If they cost less then
> > why the hell do we need the State to provide them? In any case you
> > idiot you are plain wrong, the land of the land components of exports
> > are a hell of a lot bigger than the cost of foreign embassies etc.
> > even when they contibute to international trade, which government
> > usally doesn't.
>
> Why do we pay so much for oil?
>
  So much? It's cheaper than bottled water.

> >>
> >> >The people who make the land useful
> >> >may be entirely, partly, or not at all the set of people living
> >> >under one State. It would be rare indeed for all of the value
> >> >of Australian agricultural or mining land to come from serving
> >> >Australians.
> >>
> >> The value does not come from "serving Australians." It is the
> >> _economic_advantage_ conferred by use that determines value.
> >
> > And that use is often from selling to foreigners. The advantage
> > is created by people willing to buy the product of the land.
>
> Yep. The economic value is determined by the consumer no matter
> where he might reside.

  Agreed but you miss the point. The value of the rent is due to
the _world_ community existing.

> It is assumed that there is some value to
> being wherever the consumer might place himself. And this consumer
> should bear the cost of such a selection.
>
> All of the income from production should go to the owner of the
> _real_ capital used in the production. He, in turn, will pay wages
> and he will also pay the rent of his location because he too is a
> consumer. At present, rent redistribution is limited by sovereignty.
> But rent collection is unlimited in that those who pay for the goods
> are the payers of the rent.
>
> >> And that advantage _does_ come from the Australian people and government.
> >
> > No it is merely not denied by them by force.
>
> Nope. Land use is administered by the state which either represents
> the community or not.

  But it doesn't have to be. Land rights are just as secure in the
absence of a State. See medieval Iceland.

> In Australia there is a much higher probability
> of the state representing the people than there is in the USA.
>
  The State is not the people and it's "represenation" of them is
always false.

> >>
> >> >> >> In the current system that control is exercised, at taxpayer
> >> >> >> expense, for the unearned benefit of private landowners who exact
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> payments. The user in a Georgist community has to pay the
> >> >> >> community that gives the resource its value, not a parasite who
> >> >> >> contributes nothing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And what community is that? The community of Liechhardt? The
> >> >> >community of Sydney? The community of New South Wales? Or the
> >> >> >community of Australia?
> >> >>
> >> >> Australia is the sovereign. There is no higher land-allocating
> >> >> authority in Australia, and the land allocating powers exercised by
> >> >> the states, cities and towns are delegated ones.
> >> >
> >> > *** you, Leichhardt independence forever! We will resist the
> >> >tyranical hell of Canberra!
> >>
> >> Liar.
> >
> > Actually I was kidding, but let's say I was serious. What have you
> > got against Liechhardt Liberty? Why shouldn't Liechhardt be the
> > "land allocating power"?
>
> Ask the people in Georgia and Mississippi if they had any rights to
> secede.

  Don't need to, they did.

> And, BTW, I agree with you on this one. The states should
> have a right to secede and that would bring a lot of justice to the
> USA.

  Ok, so if the states (small s) why not the counties? If the counties,
why not the cities? If the cities, why not the suburbs? If the suburbs,
why not the streets? Where comes this magical substance "sovereignty"
from?
>
> >>
> >> >> >Actually Australia is a very export oriented
> >> >> >country so natuarally the whole world contributes to it's value.
> >> >>
> >> >> No. If that were the case, land in places that have no government
> >> >> would be just as valuable as land in plces that do.
> >> >
> >> > Non sequitur.
> >>
> >> No, it is a perfectly valid inference. If the whole world was
> >> contributing the value, land in Australia would be worth no more than
> >> land in Somalia.
> >
> > I'm sorry but you are plain wrong as the facts show. The whole
> > world is part of the trading system that makes it economic to
> > exploit certain australian land resources. The whole world therefore
> > contributes to the value of said resources. Land is Australia more
> > valuable than in Somalia (I believe, I haven't checked but it's your
> > claim).
>
> Roy is right on this one. The administration of land rights and
> ownership rights by an authority accountable to the majority is
> what makes commerce possible.

  No it's possible without an "authority" accountable to anyone but
it's customers.

> While the world may want what the
> Australians can produce and thus the world creates the value in
> trade, the ability to profit from that desire is provided by the
> enforcement of land and property rights.
>
> >>
> >> >The whole world contributes to the value of Australian
> >> >land by buying things produced with and on it. The presence or absence
> >> >of government has nothing to do with it.
> >>
> >> That is just stupidity. It is the government that makes it _possible_
> >> to produce the things at all.
> >
> > Yes, Pharoah makes the sun shine and the wheat grow.
>
> No property rights = no _real_ capital development. No _real_ capital
> development = lots of starvation.

  I agree, but what has that got to do with government? We don't need
the government to enforce our property rights.
>
> >> That is why land in Australia is more
> >> productive (and commensurately more valuable) than very similar land
> >> in somalia, West Africa, etc. where governments are incompetent or
> >> non-existent.
>
> Yep.
>
> >> >> But it isn't. It's worthless.
> >> >>
> >> > And your evidence for that would be.
> >>
> >> The actual lack of land value in anarchic places like Somalia, West
> >> Africa, Afghanistan, etc.
> >>
> > None of which are actual anarchies.
>
> All of which are anarchies.

  No, they are all collections of unstable States.
>
> >> >> >So basically rent would be a tax paid to a global government.
> >> >>
> >> >> If there were one, it would be the highest land allocating authority.
> >> >>
> >> > If there is not one then the "community that creates the value" isn't
> >> >getting the rent and that would be wrong...
> >>
> >> True, recovering land rent in one community does not mitigate the
> >> injustice of landowner privilege elsewhere.
> >>
> > Which has nothing to do with the point.
> >
> >> >> >> But in both cases access would be free if not for the
> >> >> >> landowner, public or private.
> >> >>
> >> >> Please read the above. If you understand it, you will of course
> >> >> retract your false accusation that I lied.
> >> >
> >> > No you lied.
> >>
> >> No, actually you are the liar, as I have proved repeatedly.
> >>
> > You have only "proved" things if you take as read other claims
> > you made that are unproved and indeed, disproved.
> >
> >> >> >> >> And then government takes wealth from the producers and spends
> >> >> >> >> it in ways that make the land more desirable, so the productive
> >> >> >> >> have to pay the landowners even more for doing nothing.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > That's not what the government generally does.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes, of course it is, at least the reasonably honest and competent
> >> >> >> governments of democratic countries.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No it isn't.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, it just flat-out _is_.
> >> >>
> >> > No evidence.
> >>
> >> The evidence is all around you. You simply refuse to know the facts
> >> that your eyes already perceive.
> >>
> > No you do, see above example of land value in australia.
>
> Government created the interstate highway system and the dams and the
> bridges and the like here in the USA through taxation. Local
> governments create and maintain streets and water and sewer
> systems.

  And said work was not done to improve land value but to redistribute
money from those the powerful despised to those the powerful liked.

> You may claim that anarchical systems might do likewise
> without any proof,

  Were there no roads without government? No bridges? No dams? Ignorance
of history is not proof.

> but it seems almost impossible to ignore the
> proof that government has created infrastructure that adds to
> the value of land.

  It's a long way from doing it sometimes to doing it "generally". You
are the one without evidence.

> Yet that is your position and you are simply
> WRONG.
>
> >> >> >What does the right of eminent domain do to make the
> >> >> >land more attractive?
> >> >>
> >> >> It ensures that needed infrastructure, etc. will not be blocked by the
> >> >> privileges of private landowners.
> >> >
> >> > Oh so the violations of private property rights
> >>
> >> There were no violations of private property rights, lying filth.
> >
> > *** you, just because you can't make a point there's no need to
> > call me filth. Nor is there any reason to believe I'm a lair just
> > because you don't beleive as I do.
>
> The religious underpinning is that one believes that land was not
> the property of any entity before it was "found" while the other
> believes that land was the property of all persons and _is_ the
> property of all persons whether it is "found" or not. For the
> latter Mars is the property of all and for the former Mars is
> the property of none. Unless and until there is competition for
> the use of Mars then there is no rent and no problem.
>
> Believers of the "nobody owns it" sect run into difficulties when
> they try to show any justice in perpetual ownership for the heirs
> of those who "found" the land or those who "conquered" some other
> founder. There is no justice in such a system.

  Which is why I believe you have to improve it to own it.
>
> >> The community's right of eminent domain was an explicit condition of the
> >> original grant of title to the land.
> >
> > No it wasn't and if it was it certainly was not an explicit condition
> > that the State be allowed to take property for any reason whatsoever.
>
> The right to dispossess a private owner of his claim to exclude others
> from land use is the province of government by virtue of support of
> the community.

  No it isn't. The "community" even where such is defined (it never is)
has no more right to dispose than the meanest thug.

> There are other forms of government including anarchy
> where small wars are waged to decide who owns what.
>
  As opposed to the large wars?

> >>
> >> >> >> Is land in North Korea, Myanmar or Zimbabwe really worth less than
> >> >> >> land in the anarchic areas of Somalia, Western Sahara, etc.?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There are no anarchic areas of Somalia or Western Sahara.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, of course there are. Your ignorance is showing.
> >> >>
> >> > No there is no anarchic areas of Somalia or Western Sahara,
> >
> > <assertion deleted>
>
> There are anarchic areas of Somalia and Western Sahara because
> there is no powerful central government to enforce property
> rights and land rights. This lack of central government would
> seem to be the definition of anarchy.
>
  No it wouldn't. The fact that the monopoly of force is owned by
local thugs rather than national ones and the precise owner varies
week to week doesn't make it not the monopoly of force.

> >> >there
> >> >are areas where the State in charge changes daily, but no true
> >> >anarchies.
> >>
> >> Where the gang in charge changes daily, that _is_ true anarchy. There
> >> is no other way to have anarchy.
> >
> > Your profound ignorance is showing, learn something about anarchy
> > before you post about it.
>
> I believe his understanding of anarchy to be reasonably correct.
> It seems to agree with the dictionary. There is one definition
> in my Webster, however, with which you might agree: "a Utopian
> society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without
> government". Somewhat like all utopias. A nice fantasy that
> does not pan out.

  Assertion without evidence.

> The most telling fact is the rise of governments
> when anarchy was the general rule.

  Such as medieval iceland? By that standard the USA proves that
republican government is utopian.

> Governments evolved out of
> anarchy and yet some people want to go back. They have the mistaken
> idea that this time governments will not evolve just as they did the
> first time round. We have government BECAUSE anarchy did not
> work. It is that simple.
>
  It is not that simple. Governments did not "evolve" them conquered.
  
> >>
> >> >In any case paid agents of the State are daily committing violence
> >> >there.
> >>
> >> ?? You think anarchy means no one will accept money for doing
> >> violence?
> >
> > No but to blame violence on anarchy when it is largely paid for by
> > States is, well, about your standard.
>
> The war lords of the region are not doing favors for the states.

  Yes they are, paid ones.

> They seek power and control.
>
  And you don't think that they use it to favour their State backers?

> >>
> >> >> > Goverments intrude in those countries all the time and where they
> >> >> > don't terrorists backed by governments do.
> >> >>
> >> >> That is what anarchy is: the rule of a thousand tyrants.
> >> >
> >> > He claims without evidence.
> >>
> >> ROTFL!! The evidence of all human history is unanimous:
> >> no government = too many would-be governors.
> >>
> > Actually it's not. Medieval Iceland is a counterexample. In fact
> > I can't find any example of what you claim is universal.
>
> I see this Iceland thing very often from anarchists. I will not even
> discuss the issue because it is no longer an example. Whether it was
> extinguished by other forms of government or fell to pieces of its
> own accord is irrelevant. It failed.

  This "failure" being that it eventually got as violent as the average
US city - for a while. The level of warfare NEVER rose to the level
of butchery the rest of Europe saw.

> As to being "universal": a
> one time period of supposed utopia (if it actually existed) is most
> certainly not universal and yet you seem to argue that this one
> blip on the radar screen _proves_ something.
>
  It proves that the system can work. It therefore proves that claims
that it can't are false.

> >> >> An _intrusion_ by government or government-backed thugs is not
> >> >> _establishment_ of government.
> >> >
> >> > What else is it?
> >>
> >> State power applied outside the state.
> >
> > And thereby establishing a State.
>
> In the final analysis a democratic form of government is all that
> can be used to administer justice.

  How does 51 people owning 49 constitute justice?

> It can be seen by all that
> property rights are absolutely essential to the workings of this
> world and without such rights the people of the world would die
> of starvation. The stupid claim about democracy being two wolves
> and a sheep deciding what is for dinner is the typical brain dead
> prancing pig soundbite that looks no further than the end of the
> nose.

  Says someone who can't dispute it.
>
> >>
> >> >> A power that hasn't the power to allocate land within a given
> >> >> geographic area over a period of years is not a government.
> >> >>
> >> > Killing people is a fairly easy way to reallocate the land.
> >>
> >> But if you can't make that reallocation stick, you haven't established
> >> a government.
> >
> > The former claimants are dead. The violence backed claim wins. In
> > any case under your "eminent domain" nobody can make their claim
> > stick.
>
> This is ridiculous AGAIN. The community may force someone to move
> to a different location. That does not steal their wealth. They
> are compensated for the loss or they keep the land and lose the
> right to abuse it.

  They are compensated by the State's standards, which is to say inadequately.

> The Georgist method is better in that they will
> not have a massive investment in the land itself, only in the
> improvements. The relocation costs are less and the community
> must pay these costs if the improvements were erected in good
> faith (see zoning and deed restrictions -- that nasty government
> stuff again).

  Wow. You just described the most expensive legal system ever proposed.
>
> >> All you've done is add to the anarchy.
> >>
> > Learn what the word means.
>
> I suggest that anarchists define the term or that they use the
> PRIMARY definition as stated in the dictionary. That definition
> is simply the absence of a government.

  No the absence of the State.

> And the next definition
> is "A state of lawlessness and political disorder due to the
> absence of government authority". The Utopian society is the
> third definition.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Instead, the producers do all the producing, and the
> >> >> >> >> >> proprietors
> >> >> >> >> >> do the all the appropriating.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Proprietors are producers Ron, there is such a thing as
> >> >> >> >> > indirect
> >> >> >> >> >production.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Some proprietors are producers. Some do nothing.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > All proprietors are producers
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Like your other claims, that is just flat false.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Assertion is not evidence.
> >> >>
> >> >> ?? ROTFL!! What is your claim but bald assertion?
> >> >
> >> > I have backed that claim up repeatedly.
> >>
> > <assertion deleted>
>
> Again: Webster says the primary definition of proprietor
> is "one granted ownership of a colony (as one of the original
> American colonies) and full prerogatives in establishing a
> government and distributing land". It would seem that these
> "proprietors" were an extention of the government of England.
> So some proprietors did do something productive as they were
> the government authority that _allocated_ land and enforced
> land rights. We then got
> rid of the unelected English and did things in the best
> interest of the people of the USA by adopting a representative
> form of _government_.

  The fact that there are elections doesn't mean that things are
done in the best interest of the people, just that they are done
in such a way that the majority votes for them. Big difference.
>
> >> >> >> >because contributing capital to production
> >> >> >> >is prodcutive
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Land and other natural resources are not capital in the economic
> >> >> >> sense, and are not contributed by the proprietor because they would
> >> >> >> have been there, just the same, even had neither the proprietor nor
> >> >> >> any previous proprietor ever existed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But someone would have to decide to contribute them or not.
> >> >>
> >> >> No. No one can possibly contribute natural resources because they are
> >> >> there without any help, and do not originate with anyone. They can
> >> >> only be allocated, not contributed.
> >> >
> >> > But if someone owns them they can contribute them, whether or not they
> >> > created them.
>
> In the moral world that I see it is not possible to own that which
> occurs naturally. One may rent it but not own it. Therefore, land
> cannot be "contributed" because it cannot be owned.
>
> >> No. The owner does not contribute a natural resource to production,
> >> any more than a government bureacrat "contributes" to construction by
> >> granting a building permit.
> >
> > Ok, then contributes the legitimate right to use them, which is the
> > same thing.
>
> Only the wielder of power can "contribute" the "legitimate right" to
> exclusively use that which already exists. The discussion is really
> about who or what that wielder of power might be. IMHO the community
> is the proper wielder of power.
>
> >>
> >> >If noone owns them then allocation is violently chaotic.
> >>
> >> Only if there is no government.
> >
> > No, even if there's government, hell especially if there's
> > government.
>
> Now _THAT_, boys and girls, is outright assertion of something
> that is obviously incorrect, or a real distortion of what the
> English words might mean.
>
> >>
> >> >> >Otherwise whoever grabs it first gets it and is in effect the
> >> >> >proprietor.
> >> >>
> >> >> But still not the contributor. It should be obvious (but of course is
> >> >> not, at least to you) that simply grabbing something that was already
> >> >> there does not make one a contributor to production.
> >> >
> >> > It's not obvious because the act of grabbing means that you get to
> >> >decide what to contribute it to, and that's valuable because it ends
> >> >violent dispute over it.
> >>
> >> ?? Nonsense. Grabbing doesn't end violent disputes.
> >
> > It does if you hold on hard enough.
>
> But what good is it?

  Well it allows the security you argue is essential to investment
and thus prevention of starvation.

> If I own the entire world then you lose your
> freedom. I would only own the world through the threat of violence.
> But let us change this to a method that allocates land based on the
> productive use of the land or on the best use of the land (as
> determined by an informed majority) and we then find a maximization
> of individual freedom.
>
> >> It's just one more instance of violence. It's only when the grab
> >> is _legitimized_ by government and the community that the violent
> >> disputes end.
> >
> > But being "legitimised by government" is only another form of
> > grabbing and as such has no more power to end violence than any
> > other grab.
>
> The form and substance of government matters. If the majority support
> the premise of government then that premise is _right_.

  No it isn't. The fact that 51% say it's right doesn't make it right.
If 51% said to sterilise the "unfit" would that make it right?
>
> >> But of course, that legitimation is a contribution by the
> >> community, not the grabber, so the grabber still contributes
> >> nothing.
> >
> > Then why give the money to the State if the community does
> > the work?
>
> So long as the state acts in the best interest of the community then
> there is no problem in giving the land rent to the state.

  Never happen.

> If the best thing to do with the rent is to divide it equally between all
> the voters in the sovereignty then that is also a good thing to do.
>
  And what about those outside the soveriegnty? Why don't they get some?

> >>
> >> >> >> Claims such as money, stocks, and debt instruments are also not
> >> >> >> capital;
> >> >> >
> >> >> > They are stored value and the value was produced, such value is one
> >> >> >thing needed to produced,
>
> Claims such as money or bonds or dollars are not needed to produce
> anything at all. Such claims allow individuals to prevent the
> development of things that are not in their particular interest.
>
  Stored value is needed. See below.

> >> >> No. That is why economists do not recognize debts and such as factors
> >> >> of production: if A agrees to pay B $x in the future, it does nothing
> >> >> to increase production. He could just as well agree to pay $10x, and
> >> >> the effect on production would be the same. So you are just wrong.
> >> >
> >> > Learn to read, they are stored value.
>
> They can be stored value if the community recognizes them as such.
>
  They are stored value if the person who owes is not bankrupt and
voluntarily agreed to the deal.

> >> Learn to think: that is irrelevant. A diamond necklace is also stored
> >> value. Is it a factor of production?
> >
> > If you pawn it to buy capital, yes. Without the stored value in the
> > necklace you wouldn't have been able to invest.
>
> This is totally incorrect and it is the primary fallacy behind current
> perceptions and presentations of capitalism. While it is true that
> individual ownership of money and such can be used to control what
> gets developed that is not necessarily a good thing and is often
> a bad thing.

  It does more than that. The fact that something valuable has been
produced and you have a claim on it means that you can use that claim
to insure risk.

> If the community agrees that we need a better rail
> system ans is willing to work for such a rail system then, in fact,
> a rail system can be built in spite of all the rich people that
> own trucking companies and airline companies.

  But not without stored value. Without that nobody could work to
make the railway because they need to work to produce food.

> It is a realization
> of the fact that only current savings are applied to development
> and production.
>

> >>
> >> >Such value is required to produce.
> >>
> >> No, it just flat isn't.
> >
> > So you can invest without stored value? Neat trick, teach me it
> > sometime.
> > http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1596
>
> This paper is total horsecrap. And to correct it all we must do is
> to actually look at where the food comes from. It comes from the
> existing _real_ capital, the land, and the labor of all. You cannot
> really save up apples because they will rot (unless you have
> refrigeration (capital and land (land = energy))). The apples
> that provide sustenance exist on apple trees which (in the rudimentary
> economy) are land (and capital to the extent that improvements have
> been made). What needs to be paid is the wages and interest and rent
> needed to harvest the apples and this can be done with a loan. The
> individuals that are the beneficiaries of the _real_ capital created
> by virtue of the loan will need to repay the individuals that are
> currently working to sustain them while they build/rebuild. But
> there is no need for a big pile of gold. The _real_ pool is the
> land and the _real_ capital that allows labor to produce more than
> it needs. Hoarding apples or gold is just a way to empower the
> aristocracy and the anal retentive.

  So you think that because you have capital you can eat it while you
produce more? You can't. You need enough of a fund of value to exist
while you produce capital and wait for it to return the investment.
>
> http://GreaterVoice.org/credit.php
>
> Of course when you have a moron or a power mongering Republican in
> charge then the loans will just impoverish the majority so as to
> empower the aristocratic minority.
>
> >>
> >> >> >it is therefore capital, the means of
> >> >> >production.
> >> >>
> >> >> No. That is definitely false. Paper money is not a store of wealth
> >> >> and does nothing to increase production. And "the means of
> >> >> production" includes both capital and land.
> >> >>
> >> > The value that backs paper money is a store of wealth,
> >>
> >> No, it most definitely is not. The value of paper money is based on
> >> legal tender laws and taxation, not any sort of "store of wealth."
> >>
> > No it isn't. It is the capacity of people to produce, not government
> > fiat that creates the value. If nobody who produced something valauable
> > accepted fiat money then it would be worthless.
>
> And so long as people honor fiat money as a store of wealth then it
> will indeed be a store of wealth.

  I don't, I'm a gold bug. Or a silver bug. Anything but pretty paper.

> That is true of diamonds and gold
> as well. If those things are not honored as a store of wealth then
> they will not command any labor.

  But they are. People want them. They need at least a certain amount of
labour to create. If people stopped wanting them production would drop
until the price equalled approximately the labour to create them again.

> And this command of labor is what
> wealth is all about. But value is created in the eye of the consumer
> and not in the mind or eye of the producer. If there is no demand
> for gold or food then there is no value in trade and no store of
> wealth that can be used to command labor.

  But there is.
>
> >> >otherwise why would you want the paper money?
> >>
> >> Ultimately, just to pay taxes with.
> >>
> > Then they would want as little as possible. If the only use for
> > paper is to bribe thugs you'll want to invest as little as possible
> > in such an unproductive form.
>
> ?? That is nonsense. Money is what the people with all the weapons
> will take as opposed to taking your _real_ capital or your chickens
> or your life.

  And so it makes sense to have as little as possible to ensure that
doesn't happen.
>
> >> >> >> and in any case, owning capital is not the same as contributing
> >> >> >> capital,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But it is a neccesary first step.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, the necessary first step is production of the capital by labor.
> >> >>
> >> > Ok, then a neccesary second step, but a step neccesary and prior to
> >> >contributing capital.
> >> >
>
> The ownership of capital increases the development of capital and for
> that reason ownership may be good. But we as individuals do not own
> the interstate highway system or the dams and the bridges or the school
> buildings and in many cases insistence on individual ownership of
> _real_ capital due to one's religious position will actually retard the
> development of needed _real_ capital.
>
> >> >> >Those who own it contribute it
> >> >> >because they have the authority to make the decision.
> >> >>
> >> >> No. Having power over a production factor does not make one a
> >> >> contributor to production. It makes one a rent seeker.
> >> >>
> >> > Yes it does make you a contributor to production because someone
> >> >has to make the decision.
> >>
> >> Wrong. By that "logic" a government bureaucrat who issues a building
> >> permit is just as much a contributor to production as the guy who
> >> pounds the nails. Such claims are self-evidently false and
> >> ridiculous.
> >
> > But nobody has to issue a building certificate and somebody has to
> > grant permission to use the land, that's the difference.
>
> The use of land and the abuse of land are the issue here. No matter who
> enforces land use restrictions such restrictions will always exist.
> The entity that "grants" use will do so for some particular purpose.
> That is what allows capital investment on the land. You would not
> build a home where the guy next to you could open a landfill.
>
> >>
> >> >> >> especially if the capital is already productively employed when
> >> >> >> the proprietor comes into ownership of it:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If it was then why did they sell it?
> >> >>
> >> >> ??? How should I know? Ask the seller.
> >> >
> >> > The answer kinda destroys your point.
> >>
> >> No, it proves that you have no point.
> >
> > No it proves that the value they sold the capital for is more
> > use to them than the capital itself. If this is the case the
> > the buyer is contributing value because the previous owners
> > get the difference between what they value the capital at
> > and what they got for it. IOW What they would have sold for
> > and what they did. This increase in value not only benefits
> > them but anyone who buys capital because they know they can
> > sell it.
>
> What total horse manure.
>
> >>
> >> >> Or maybe there was no seller, and the capital was a gift or bequest.
> >> >
> >> > Fine then the reciever contributes by not changing the capital use
> >> >to a less useful productive path.
> >>
> >> ?? He contributes by not getting in the way? Then how is he doing
> >> any more than the bureaucrat issuing the permit?
> >
> > Because you don't need a beaurcrat and you do need an owner.
>
> You need an allocator. That is not necessarily ans individual owner
> and no matter what you do the enforcement problem will remain.
>
> >>
> >> >Avoiding this decision is valuable,
> >> >and someone has to do it because someone has to have the power to decide
> >> >how the capital is used.
> >>
> >> <snicker> Don't look now, but you just said that government
> >> bureaucrats who tell people what to do with their capital are just as
> >> productive as the owners.
> >>
> > Nope, because they don't have the right incentives and in any case
> > they don't do anything the owner doesn't already do better, and the
> > owner is actually neccesary.
>
> Claiming that owners are necessary over and over again is not proof.
> I see absolutely no benefit to individual ownership of land other
> than as a store of wealth. As we age we will buy the land from
> some owner (which in my system is the state). This will entitle
> us to live on the land in our retirement years without paying the
> rent/taxes. When we croak, the land again belongs to the community.
>
> >> >> >> that capital has already been contributed, with no help from the
> >> >> >> new owner.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But buying capital makes it more profitable to produce capital and
> >> >> >thus contributes to the production of both capital and consumer
> >> >> >goods.
> >> >>
> >> >> The inheritor of capital does nothing to make capital either more
> >> >> abundant or more productive.
> >> >
> >> > Sure he does, he continues exercising the power to decide how to use
> >> >it, without which it's useless.
> >>
> >> Lie. The people who are using it are already exercising that power.
> >
> > No they aren't because they never had the power to say what to do
> > with it. They didn't put in the stored value neccesary to take on
> > that role.
>
> This concept of stored value as a control over others is very much at
> the heart of things. Such power must be limited by the majority
> of the citizenry.
>
> >> >> >> Does a thief or landowner who got the capital in return for no
> >> >> >> contribution also count as a "productive proprietor" in your world?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > And who says that landowner got anything in return for no
> >> >> >contribution?
> >> >>
> >> >> I say he got capital in return for no contribution. He charged rent
> >> >> for use of resources that would have been there anyway,
> >> >
> >> > But without a landowner nobody could use it exclusively and thus
> >> >more usefully than in hunter/gatherer mode.
> >
> > <assertion deleted>
> >
> >> The landowner doesn't secure the tenant's tenure. Government does.
> >
> > Says who? The fact is that original land title was often acquired
> > by just sitting on it. The government had nothing to do with that.
> >
>
> This is ridiculous. The land occupier can spend all his time protecting
> his land from the other people or he can accept the use of government
> to do it at a lot less cost TO HIM. But moronic anarchists never seem
> to be able to grasp the concept.
>
> >> The landowner is just a pure parasite.
> >>
> >> >> and used it to
> >> >> buy capital that would have been used productively anyway.
> >> >
> >> > If he had not bought it would as much capital have been produced?
> >>
> >> Probably more, as the money would have been left in the hands of
> >> producers instead of being appropriated by a parasite.
> >
> > Assumes that someone would have been able to produce on that land.
>
> There is not any assumption being made here. Is the land is not
> useful then it has no value.
>
> >> The point is,
> >> the landowner who devotes money to buying capital is no more
> >> productive than the thief who does so. Both are parasites who take
> >> money from producers; and producers are most certainly more likely to
> >> use that money productively than are thieves or landowners.
> >
> > But even assuming that someone stole every penny they originally
> > invested they still contribute value by investing, just less than
> > they took in the first place.
>
> So on net they are a parasite.
>
> >>
> >> >> contributed exactly nothing, but got something. That means others who
> >> >> were contributing something were getting nothing.
> >> >>
> >> >> >The act of establishing rights to a natural
> >> >> >resources is a contribution
> >> >>
> >> >> But the landowner does not do that. The community does.
> >> >
> >> > No the community just goes along with it.
> >>
> >> No, that is just another of your stupid lies with no foundation
> >> whatever in fact.
> >
> > Then tell me how the community establishes these rights?
>
> The majority agrees to the terms where this is in the best interest
> of the majority.
>
> > Isn't
> > it by agreeing with the landowner that they've improved the land
> > or lived on it long enough to claim ownership?
>
> It is agreed to because it is in the best interest of the community
> to do so. We have entered into a time where that is not the case.
>
> > So the landowner
> > sweats for years and the community votes once. Not exactly a
> > massive contribution on the community side.
>
> It is the contribution of the current tenant that should matter.
> So long as the current tenant is able to pay the rent then all is
> well and good. In order to do this then the current tenant must
> be productive or be drawing on a store of value. Land ownership
> is not the real problem. It is inheritance that is the problem.
>
> >>
> >> >> The landowner just takes advantage of it.
> >> >>
> >> > No the landowner establishes the rights,
> >>
> >> Utter garbage. Your claim has no basis in historical fact.
> >>
> > Actually it does, landowners often defended their rights.
>
> They often lose. The majority will almost inevitably win out
> on this unless the people are deprived of information and led
> to believe that they actually _NEED_ fascist pigs.
>
> >> >we know this because
> >> >why would anyone else establish rights for another to own land?
> >>
> >> Because that is government's job: to secure peoples' rights.
> >
> > No, the government's job is to benefit itself. Even if we
> > accept that this is not true when exactly has a government said
> > it's primary job was securement of land title.
>
> Government's primary role is to secure property rights. I think
> it really odd that anyone would disagree with that. You may think
> that government does not currently do that but to say that this
> is not the role of government is rather ridiculous.
>
> >>
> > <assertion deleted>
> >
> >> >> >because it makes it possible for those
> >> >> >resources to be used in the most useful way rather than the first
> >> >> >way that's convenient, regardless of whether it's the best use.
> >> >>
> >> >> Community recovery of land rent stimulates more productive use of land
> >> >> than private landowner privilege.
> >> >>
> >> > How?
> >>
> >> By ensuring that one can only profit by productive use, and not by
> >> holding land idle for speculative gain.
> >
> > On the contray the community could profit just as easily by holding
> > for speculative gain.
>
> Unlikely but possible. But this is not parasitical because the
> entire community gets the gain.
>
> > In any case holding something so that it is not devoted to lower
> > value uses is productive.
>
> No. It may well be beneficial, but it is not productive. More
> production in the face of slack demand is not beneficial. To "create"
> unneeded jobs is just silly.
>
> >> This is not a mystery. It is
> >> a fact well known to economists -- though not, of course, to lying
> >> ignoramuses like you.
> >
> > Pretending that you are an economist or that everyone who disagrees
> > with you is lying is not very convincing.
> >>
> >> -- Roy L
> >
> > You are not worth the bother.
>
> The readers are worth the bother.

Loading