Re: Property Rights: Land vs. A Sack Of Tomatoes


"Dan in Philly" <djr8@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42a64a43$1_4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ruetheday@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> Carl Pope gave a speech to the Sierra Club...
>>> ...most property can be viewed as a "sack of
>>> tomatoes" but that land could not. The sack of tomatoes analogy is
>>> simple: if you purchase a sack of tomatoes, your property rights over
>>> them are absolute - you can eat them, plant them, turn them into sauce,
>>> let them go to waste, or do just about anything else with them and no
>>> one has the right to prevent you from doing as you see fit. Land
>>> however, is not a sack of tomatoes, does not have the attributes of a
>>> sack of tomatoes, and logically cannot be treated the same.
>
> First, his example should have used a sump pump or tire iron or printing
> press or some other form of capital. Tomatoes are a perishable consumer
> good.
>
> That said: this is the "land is special" argument. I'll agree that land is
> different, but not special. Consider:
> a) land and capital are both forms of wealth.
> b) both provide a return to the owner.
> c) both can be taxed.
> d) if you have competitive markets, then everything works out fine.

Silly.

Land is created by no one, unlike capital.

Land is in fixed supply, unlike capital.

>
> Dan in Philly
>


.

Relevant Pages