Re: Eminent Domain Abuse

ruetheday_at_outgun.com
Date: 03/03/05 

Date: 3 Mar 2005 07:04:47 -0800

>> Roy's explanation about land applies equally to natural resources
>>and broadcast spectrum. The owners of each receive an economic
>>rent that represents a deadweight loss to society.

>They are simply using what is there. Nature is not owned by
>governments. It is for use by those who can use it. Trees are
>there to be cut. Soils is there to be cultivated and sown.
>Air is their to be breather. Water is there to be ingested or
>to be sailed on or under. Nature is for anyone who can use it.

That is correct. Land and natural resources are there to be used, and
by anyone. Until a landlord comes along and declares them his, for his
use (or non-use) only.

>We have a choice about how nature is used. It can be fought
>over or it can be co-opoeratively used to benefit of many or
>all.

You're really starting to sound like a Georgist.

>But one thing is for sure. The Government is not the ueber Land Lord
>collecting ground rent in the form of taxes.

Nor should private landlords be.

>If government taxes land it is taxing something it does not -own-.
>Individuals and/or firms own land.

>>From where does that ownership right derive?

>Either they had it aboriginally, won it in war (by fair means or
>foul) or bought from someone who already owned it.

And of course you don't differentiate between the different mechanisms
under which it was acquired. Fair or foul, it's all the same to you.

BTW, your list is by no means exhaustive. There are plenty of
instances where land was appropriated from one group by another that
did not involve an actual war.

>Land is property. It belongs to those who bought it, won it or got
>it by improvement (such as the Dutch in Holland). Government is at
>most a policeman to guard the rights of property owners.

Proof by vigorous assertion?

This is where the thread enters the phase where we must discuss the
origin and justification of property rights.

Simply saying, "it's my property because I bought it, and the
government must defend that right because property is sacred" is
illogical, fuzzy-thinking nonsense.

I'll start off with a Lockean justification of property rights:

1. Man owns himself
2. As a result of self-ownership, man owns the fruits of his labor
3. As a result of owning the fruits of his labor, man may engage in
voluntary trade with others for the fruits of their labor and in so
doing acquire a property right to those products as well

I more or less agree with the above. Then Locke addresses the
justification of property rights in land, and this is where he goes
horribly awry. Since land is the not the fruit of anyone's labor, the
above justification doesn't work. So Locke introduces a dodge - by
mixing one's labor with land that is not presently owned by anyone, one
acquires a property right in the land. Unfortunately, this reasoning
doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Why should mixing something you own with
something you do not own confer ownership of the whole? It is more
reasonable to conclude that you simply own the part you owned before
and do not own the part you did not own before. If the two cannot be
separated, it is equally reasonable to conclude that mixing the two
causes you to lose what you previously owned. Nozick masterfully summed
this up when he asked, "if I pour tomato juice that I own into the
ocean, is it more logical to conclude that I now own the entire ocean
or that I wasted my tomato juice?"

So we're back to the Georgist justification of property rights - man
has a legitimate property right in the fruits of his labor and an equal
claim on those things which nature has provided for all.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Foundation of Understanding
    ... fruits of one's labor. ... It follows from there that, in a free society, ... of one's labor for the fruits of others' labor. ... Land is not the fruit of anyone's labor. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Distribution & Redistribution
    ... >> walks (4.5 hours of labor). ... > berries home today, and still go out on the next days walk anyway. ... If these are not labor and not land then they must be capital. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Distribution & Redistribution
    ... > (4.5 hours of labor). ... berries home today, and still go out on the next days walk anyway. ... >> application of human will to an inanimate object such as land. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Landlordism and Slavery. was: Live8
    ... way so long as there is not equal labor. ... If the person in China labors for 10 hours and produces 20 pairs of shoes and the person in the USA labors for 10 hours and produces 20 pair of similar shoes, the fact that you need only pay the Chinese person 2 bananas while you would need to pay the American person 50 bananas is not referred to as "comparative advantage" even if it sounds really cool. ... The _owner_ and consumers are simply able to extract more economic rent in China than they are able to extract in the USA, i.e. they are able to use slave labor in China because the Chinese people do not have the abundant supply of land and other natural resources per capita as we have here. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Landlordism and Slavery. was: Live8
    ... That is NOT comparative advantage. ... way so long as there is not equal labor. ... >> do not have the abundant supply of land and other ... >> natural resources per capita as we have here. ...
    (sci.econ)