Re: Income from a tax on land.

royls_at_telus.net
Date: 12/21/04 

Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:14:10 GMT

On 20 Dec 2004 20:27:01 -0500, jmhall@apex.home.net wrote:

>royls@telus.net writes:
>
>> On 19 Dec 2004 23:38:58 -0500, jmhall@apex.home.net wrote:
>>
>> >royls@telus.net writes:
>> >
>> >> On 19 Dec 2004 11:51:50 -0500, jmhall@apex.home.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >royls@telus.net writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 22:55:31 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
>> >> >> <root@localhost.> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On 18 Dec 2004 14:05:55 -0800, "lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au"
>> >> >> ><lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Even if noone can claim ownership, all have a moral right to the
>> >> >> >>proceeds.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Why? If there is no labor involved, I don't see how you can make this
>> >> >> >claim.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If none has any better claim than any other, all have equal claims.
>> >> >> Surely this logic is inescapable.
>> >> >
>> >> >So either no one can ever claim it--including as some
>> >> >group, with the exception of a group consisting of
>> >> >everyone in the universe at all times--or everyone has
>> >> >and equal right to make a claim but once someone or
>> >> >some group has made the claim other's need to respect
>> >> >that claim.
>> >>
>> >> Why? How can just making a claim erase others' rights?
>> >
>> >It doesn't. The fact that I own my car doesn't erase your
>> >right to own a car--even if I bought the only car you could
>> >afford.
>>
>> ?? Stop trying to change the subject. Cars are not analogous because
>> they can be produced. Land cannot. If you have a right to claim a
>
>NO one is changing the subject

Yes, you are. The right to own what one produces or acquires of
others' products in voluntary trade is in no way analogous to a
"right" to unilaterally deny others access to what none produced.

I repeat: if A and B both have a pre-existing right to use a piece of
land, how can A have a right to extinguish B's right?

>and the car is no more
>a rearangement of matter than filling in wetlands or
>building dikes to keep the sea waters out.

Correct. But those are _applications_of_labor_ to improve land, not
_claims_ of land. What you are claiming here is a right not merely to
_use_ and improve natural resources, but a right to _claim_ them --
i.e., a right to deny others use of them, even while not using them
oneself.

>It' merely
>a matter of degree not kind.

Flat false. The difference between owning what one produces and
claiming ownership of what no one produced is one of kind, not degree.

>If you want to play the
>game you're playing here realize you're merely refuting
>your own arguments elsewhere in these groups for all
>to see.

ROTFL! Utter nonsense. You tried to shift the ground, claiming that
people's rights to own the products of their labor (which cannot
conflict, as what you produced, I by definition did not) implied a
"right" to claim parts of the pre-existing, _fixed_ supply of land,
which cannot do anything _but_ conflict.

-- Roy L

Quantcast