Re: Income from a tax on land.
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 12/16/04
- Next message: Quirk: "Odin Is The Reason for the Season."
- Previous message: Mark Monson: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- In reply to: Igor: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Next in thread: Igor: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Reply: Igor: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:15:11 GMT
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:52:21 GMT, Igor <jjweatherby@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
>royls@telus.net wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:10:29 -0500, "Paul" <TaxMan@negia.net> wrote:
>>
>>><royls@telus.net> wrote
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:19:21 -0500, "Paul A Thomas" <taxman@negia.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>So if all undeveloped land in the US became public
>>>>>
>>>>>Then individual property ownership rights would get trampled. Welcome the
>>>>>communists.
>>>>
>>>>That is of course false.
>>>
>>>So I own raw undeveloped land, the government takes it (because you said
>>>so),
>>
>> No, because that is the only way to secure people's rights.
>>
>>>and my rights aren't being violated?
>>
>> That's right, they aren't, because your land title is not a right at
>> all, but merely a government-granted privilege in the first place.
>
>You are flat out wrong here and George would disagree with you.
Do not presume to speak for Henry George, of whose work you clearly
have not the slightest understanding.
>So would Ronald Coase.
And...?
>A deed is a BUNDLE OF RIGHTS.
Oh, sure, legal rights, the same as the legal rights of a slave owner
in a society where slavery is a recognized institution. I don't think
Paul was talking about legal rights, because then his point is just
stupid and vacuous. As yours is.
>It gives you rights to use
>the space and rights to ownership of WHATEVER resources are on or below
>the land. It gives you EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS to the use of the land and to
>even some of the airspace above. Land ownership is a property right.
You are engaging in the logical fallacy called "begging the question."
We all know landowners have a legal right to their land. That is not
the question, because legal rights are created by law and can just as
validly be erased by law; so if the law was changed to make Paul's
land public, his _legal_ rights would disappear without a trace, and
not be violated. So unless Paul is as stupid as you (which, granted,
is quite possible), he was clearly talking about some sort of "right"
entirely distinct from his legal ones.
>> Yours is the same argument slave owners used to defend their right of
>> property in other human beings, and it is no more valid for land than
>> for slaves.
>
>THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE.
Correct. The slave owner got to appropriate the fruits of his slave's
labor. The landowner gets to appropriate part of the fruits of pretty
much everyone's labor.
> A LAND DEED DOES NOT SAY YOU OWN THE LAND IT
>SAYS YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE IT.
Which right is contingent on payment of the taxes. Which taxes are
entirely at the discretion of the relevant jurisdiction(s). True.
>Slavery said you owned the slave as a
>PIECE OF CAPITAL.
That is a lie. Deeds to slaves never designated them as "capital."
Anyway, no one disputes that land titles are legally assets, just as
slaves were.
> If a property "right" is not valid in the first place,
>> you cannot make it valid by question begging.
>
>Of course is valid.
Nope. Valid property rights rest on an act of production. Land was
never produced, and therefore can never have validly become property
in the first place.
>Without PROPERTY RIGHTS THERE IS NO ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
True, but irrelevant to the issue. There have been numerous cases of
economic systems in the absence of property rights in _land_. To make
any sort of argument along these lines, you need to show that property
rights _in_land_ are necessary to the function of an economic system
(hint: you can't). Property rights in human beings were abolished,
and the economic system went on just as well as -- in fact better than
-- before. And unlike land, slaves were products of labor ;^)
>Without property rights we are back to the state of nature.
We are also in the state of nature with them.
>The only
>thing I fear if I kill you for your production is that your family might
>kill me.
Then you are an idiot who has not yet understood the children's fable
about the goose that lays the golden eggs.
>Property rights define the RIGHT TO TAKE AN ACTION.
Among other things. But maybe you should clarify what you mean by
"right."
>They bar
>actions such as theft and blocking access to the market. Without
>property rights you do not have an economic system.
Strawman. I have not suggested eliminating property rights. That was
Karl Marx. You claim that eliminating private property rights in land
is the same as eliminating all property rights. That claim is a
flat-out lie, and just as false, stupid and dishonest as the slave
owners' claim that eliminating property rights in human beings would
be the same as eliminating all property rights. It is astonishing how
eager the defenders of landowner privilege are to arm themselves with
the "logic" of slavery.
>George has been
>greatly misunderstood as socialist but speaking of communal property.
>This is not communism as we know it today. George was advocating land
>ownership as a bundle of property rights.
Sure: tenant-like rights of use that did not include keeping the rent.
> > Loss of an unjust
>> privilege is not a violation of rights.
>
>UNJUST BY WHOSE STANDARDS?
The standard of equal rights. There is no way to implement equal
rights while granting some people privileges over others. That is why
the logic of private landownership finds so much commonality with the
logic of slavery.
>Now you have left the area of economics and
>gone into philosophy.
Philosophy informs all scientific disciplines.
-- Roy L
- Next message: Quirk: "Odin Is The Reason for the Season."
- Previous message: Mark Monson: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- In reply to: Igor: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Next in thread: Igor: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Reply: Igor: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
