Re: Smith: ground rents and land rents

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:05:26 GMT, Les Cargill <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> There is a big difference between the income of a bandit who robs
>> people passing through a forest and the income of a holder of a royal
>> license to collect tolls from the very same travelers: if you assert
>> your rights against the depredations of the former and overcome him by
>> force, the government will give you a pat on the back, whereas if you
>> do likewise against the latter, it will hunt you down and forcibly
>> deprive you of your liberty, assets and/or life. Likewise for the
>> contrasting cases of unauthorized foreign land appropriators (i.e.,
>> invaders) and officially approved domestic ones.
>
>But this distinction may be described by 'some rob with a gun,
>some with a fountain pen'.

Correct.

>>>But this is also problematic, as it requires a rigorous
>>>definition of "earned". We might define "earned" in terms
>>>of "rent".
>>>
>>>But that would be circular.
>>
>> Why not define "earned" as "obtained in return for commensurate
>> contribution"?
>
>But commensurate how?

In value.

>Land rent would appear to be a measure of
>value in that it's traded.

Right. But it is not contributed by the landowner, as it would exist
just the same even if he did not. So it is not earned.

-- Roy L

.