Re: Eminent Domain Abuse

From: David Schwartz (davids_at_webmaster.com)
Date: 03/10/05 

Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:05:03 -0800

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:422f7f5e.18957448@news.telus.net...

>> The difference between the value of the cooking and the value of the
>>something else *is* created by the Burger King cook.
>
> No, it is not. Such a claim is nonsensical on its face.

    Again, your argument consists of a pejorative followed by ridicule.
Where's the beef?

>>> Garbage. The labor that improves land value does so through
>>> externalities that cannot, repeat, _cannot_ be recovered by contracts.
>>
>> You keep saying this and everytime it's refuted,
>
> It has never yet been refuted, certainly not by you.

    A claim you contradict immediately.

>>you pretend the
>>refutation doesn't matter. You equivocate between whether none of it can
>>be
>>recovered or whether some of it can. (You have yet to take a consistent
>>position.)
>
> The question is easily resolved by appeal to objective reality: how
> much of it actually _is_ recovered?

    How much are you claiming? Is your argument that none of this can be
recovered?

>>>>Every form of labor creates value
>>>>that other people enjoy and that the laborer cannot extract the true
>>>>value
>>>>of. A sequence of even exchanges leaves everyone better off.
>>
>>> That has _nothing_ to do with the problem of externalities affecting
>>> land value.
>>
>> It has everything to do with the problem of externalities.
>
> No, it doesn't.

    Again, you argument consists of just saying "no".

>>People won't
>>do things unless it's in their interest.
>
> Wrong. They buy lottery tickets.

    First of all, it is not always irrational to engage in a transaction
where the expected value is less than the cost. Second, you are construing
"interest" extremely narrowly.

>>If they benefit others in the
>>process, they can try to extract the benefit to others by contract. If
>>they
>>can't, then they're not entitled to it.
>
> Fine. Every goverment-issued land title (i.e., all of them) is a
> contract that says the owner will keep the taxes current or give up
> the land. So the public that creates the value in land _already_has_
> every right to recover it. _By_contract_.

    You know perfectly well this is not a contract.

>>>> The point is that people have the right to use contracts to extract
>>>> as
>>>>much of the value of their labor as possible. That they cannot extract
>>>>in
>>>>this manner, they are not entitled to.
>>
>>> ?? But the beneficiary is entitled to pocket it? Why?
>>
>> I am not trying to defend a taking, you are.
>
> No, you are.

    There it is again, a one word argument. Why not just say "that's what
you think!" and stop any pretense at reasoning?

>>One child is born to Bill Gates and another child is born to a
>>bum, I don't have to defend one child's entitlement to a life of wealth
>>and
>>privilege. You, however, would have to defend an attempt to take from one
>>to
>>give to the other.
>
> That is what you have done.

    I am not trying to take anything from anyone. You are.

>>> And landowners are entitled to bill others for the benefits their
>>> taxes already paid for.
>>
>> This has what to do with an LVT?!
>
> Only everything. Land value _is_ the discounted present value of the
> income the owner can get by charging others for the services and
> infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities
> the community provides, and the resources nature provides.

    And the value of a car is the discounted present value of the use of the
road infrastructure the government provides, right?

> You will notice that conspicuous by its absence from this list is
> anything the _landowner_ provides.

    A car owner doesn't provide anything to create the value of a car, qua
owner.

    DS