Re: LVT: more arguments against

In sci.econ, royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 13:53:41 +0000 (UTC), EskWIRED@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:

> >In sci.econ, royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >> >That is the basis for ad valorem land taxes. And in some localities, non
> >> >land property is also taxed for that very reason.
> >
> >> Except that unlike land, its value doesn't come from government and
> >> the community.
> >
> >Some of the value comes from the natural resouces incorpoated into the
> >object.

> They aren't natural resources any more. They're products.

You can define the problem away, sure. But unless you can explain "why",
then there is an important hole in either your understanding, or the
theory itself.


> >How can an individual justly own the natural resources in, say, a
> >bag of topsoil?

> They aren't natural resources any more. They're products.

This is glib, and perhaps correct, but ultimately, useless. Unless you
can explain the magical transformation.

Is it your claim that any amount of labor, no matter how insignificant,
tansforms any amount of natural resources, no matter how vast, into
product?

If not, what ARE you saying?

And how do you deal with this:

A lost tribe knows nothing of gold. Not until a warrior finds a nugget on
the surface of some tribal land.

He brings it back, with a report of more nuggets scattered on the surface.

Gold fever ensues. Everybody wants some.

The greedy warrior considers two plans: One would be to convince his
buddies to exclude everybody else from the gold-laden tribal land, keeping
it all for himself.

The other plan is to sneak back to the secret location, and to pick up all
the gold for himself.

Under your theory, the second plan is ethical, corect? And he would own
the gold totally and completely, correct?

Why? (Please include more detail than tautological references to products
and labor. Please include explicit reasoning.)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: LVT: more arguments against
    ... >> They aren't natural resources any more. ... the rent is redistributed equally to all persons in the ... of the land, i.e. a gold mine or a farm or a lumber ... > A lost tribe knows nothing of gold. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: LVT: more arguments against
    ... >> They aren't natural resources any more. ... >Is it your claim that any amount of labor, no matter how insignificant, ... >A lost tribe knows nothing of gold. ... >The other plan is to sneak back to the secret location, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Theories of underdevelopment
    ... >>There was plenty of fertile land available and then gold. ... They become, and not because of land taxes, but because they ... >>Was not proved, was stated, though the tax scheme might have helped. ... Poland just recently left socialism and is ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Historical comparisons
    ... :>:privately owned in Singapore and HK, ... land in Singapore. ... Which contradicts your claim, above, that lack of private ... ownership of natural resources means stagnation and collapse. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Theories of underdevelopment
    ... >> The fact that you think the amount of gold was even relevant proves ... Land taxes made it _profitable_ to assimilate the basis for greater ... Like other poor countries, Mexico has always taxed production despite ... themselves not quite so rich. ...
    (sci.econ)
Loading