Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents

Beal wrote:

On Jan 23, 5:08 pm, "Mark M." <m...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Beal wrote:

r...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:31:55 -0500, S. Doo <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:42:53 -0600, Michael Scheltgen
<mjs...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

w_b_r...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

"Can you provide any evidence for your statement
that land appropriates zero economic rent in our
economy? Any at all?"
...
Land does not "appropriate" rent or anything else
without development, and that requires investment.

Then you agree that landowners appropriate economic rent when there's
investment/development? That's what I meant. It cannot possible be zero.

Landowners don't "appropriate" anything -- they *pay money* to
purchase a prospective flow of rental income, paying a market rate
that reflects considerable risk of loss.

Pretty much as slave owners did.

And there is the root of your ideology. You cannot appropriate
anything from anyone unless it was theirs in the first place.


The right to use land is not a right of ownership but a right of action. Since no
human action can be taken except in three dimensional space, and since a great part
of the practically useful three dimensional space is privately owned, it
unavoidably follows that private ownership of land (three dimensional space)
decreases freedom of action. Those who are born into such a system obviously never
agreed to it. Just as obviously their natural right to use the earth is
inequitably restricted by such a system, if we accept the premise that no person
has an inborn right to greater freedom than the rest.


Justify your beliefs all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you
believe in communal ownership or rights to (all) land. Others do not.

No, I don't believe in communal or collective ownership rights to all land. I believe in individual right to USE all land, bounded by others' right to USE all land. Each person born on this planet has an inalienable right to USE the earth. This is not a right to own the earth. Ownership is the right of exclusion. You can own something and never use it. The right to the earth is the right of USE. There are many examples of natural resource USE without OWNERSHIP. Each of us has the right to breath the atmosphere. Nobody has the right, either individually or collectively, to exclusive ownership of the atmosphere. Should somebody operate a machine that consumes oxygen on a such scale that global levels of oxygen drop dangerously, the crime would not be theft of collective property but theft of natural opportunity to individually USE air.

Mark M.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
    ... unavoidably follows that private ownership of land ... believe in communal ownership or rights to land. ... of it to the community and then thrown in some rules defining its ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
    ... believe in communal ownership or rights to land. ... fabricate an association between Georgism and communism. ... and then accuse Georgists of Satanism? ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: "Dream house, sans spouse: More women buy homes"
    ... home ownership. ... When one owns a piece of land ... invasion, economic chaos, ... and means to grow food for my own family and perhaps a few others. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: More freedom-hating "libertarians"
    ... The LDP believes the ownership of property is a fundamental right ... Onl in regards to land. ... On labor, I know of a few Libertarians that have are ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
    ... them, the Georgists are the thieves, not the land owners. ... believe in private ownership or public ownership of the asset in ... That is the difference between a public beach and a private beach. ... The community does not rightly own ...
    (sci.econ)