Land isn't a fruit of your labor

[Dream Theater]

Land isn't a fruit of your labor; so why does it go to benefit people with wealth? Land predates mankind by billions of years. For whatever purpose, it's necessary to use and exclude others from some part of the natural world, but how is it faor for people to be put at an economic disadvantage through land ownership? The only source of wealth dependent on the individual is labor; I think that's pretty clear.

[Danhalen]

I bought my land, and the house that stands on it, through the fruits of my labor.

I'm not sure I get the gist of your point.

[Eudaimonist]

Land certainly is a fruit of labor since it is developed through human action, even if the original dirt or rock is old. Property rights to land protect the labor people do to develop land for human use. If you, for example, build a house and a farm on land, it sure is a good thing to have secure property rights to the land to protect your labor.

I will say this though: in Sweden there is something called "Every man's right" which says that everyone has the right to walk through forested areas owned by others, and even spend the night in those areas, as long as one doesn't damage property, spend more than a certain number of nights in the same location, and some other things. Since this right is crafted in a way that minimizes the impact of such use of the forest on land owners, it seems a reasonable way of allowing people to enjoy the Swedish forests. I'd count this as a good idea.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Ody]

I bought my land, and the house that stands on it, through the fruits of my labor.

I'm not sure I get the gist of your point.


The house is constructed with your imput of capital, your land is only modified by your imput of capital.

[jonny]

Land certainly is a fruit of labor since it is developed through human action, even if the original dirt or rock is old. Property rights to land protect the labor people do to develop land for human use. If you, for example, build a house and a farm on land, it sure is a good thing to have secure property rights to the land to protect your labor.

I will say this though: in Sweden there is something called "Every man's right" which says that everyone has the right to walk through forested areas owned by others, and even spend the night in those areas, as long as one doesn't damage property, spend more than a certain number of nights in the same location, and some other things. Since this right is crafted in a way that minimizes the impact of such use of the forest on land owners, it seems a reasonable way of allowing people to enjoy the Swedish forests. I'd count this as a good idea.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I live in a state where the federal government owns almost 60% of the land and opens most of it to the public, so I don't think there's a need to go onto people's private land. I can see how that type of law would be nice in areas where almost all the land is private though.t

[Dream Theater]

I bought my land, and the house that stands on it, through the fruits of my labor.

I'm not sure I get the gist of your point.

Land isn't constructible. People have no right to use it for wealth purposes - the only source of wealth that should be recognized under our system is labor. That's my argument.

[jonny]

I bought my land, and the house that stands on it, through the fruits of my labor.

I'm not sure I get the gist of your point.

Land isn't constructible. People have no right to use it for wealth purposes - the only source of wealth that should be recognized under our system is labor. That's my argument.

You're not making any sense.

So, do you believe all land should be free? Do you believe you should have the right to put up a house in my backyard? Do you think you should be able to tear down someone's home on a piece of land and put yours there if you want it? Where do you expect people to live? Let me guess, the government can build us homes and give us a place to sleep at night. ;)

[Dream Theater]

Look up geoism. Even Friedman acknowledged that is a very realistic approach to the left-libertarian view that land shouldn't create wealth.

[jonny]

Look up geoism. Even Friedman acknowledged that is a very realistic approach to the left-libertarian view that land shouldn't create wealth.

Why don't you just tell me about it? You're the one who is trying to do the convincing. And you didn't answer any of my questions.

[Dream Theater]

Look up geoism. Even Friedman acknowledged that is a very realistic approach to the left-libertarian view that land shouldn't create wealth.

Why don't you just tell me about it? You're the one who is trying to do the convincing. And you didn't answer any of my questions.

Your questions are ridiculous.

Why tell you something others can say better? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

[jonny]

Look up geoism. Even Friedman acknowledged that is a very realistic approach to the left-libertarian view that land shouldn't create wealth.

Why don't you just tell me about it? You're the one who is trying to do the convincing. And you didn't answer any of my questions.

Your questions are ridiculous.

Why tell you something others can say better? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism


Alright. You can play by yourself then.

[Ðanisty]

Look up geoism. Even Friedman acknowledged that is a very realistic approach to the left-libertarian view that land shouldn't create wealth.

Why don't you just tell me about it? You're the one who is trying to do the convincing. And you didn't answer any of my questions.

Your questions are ridiculous.

Why tell you something others can say better? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
Because it's an internet discussion forum and people expect people to discuss things?

[Dream Theater]

Discussions don't require me typing out every single definition. Clearly everyone in this thread has access to the internet. Utilize a search engine.

But this is all getting irrelevant. If someone has the time to read one paragraph, I gave you the link and my opinion. Feel free to contribute something meaningful.

[Ðanisty]

But this is all getting irrelevant. If someone has the time to read one paragraph, I gave you the link and my opinion. Feel free to contribute something meaningful.
I think it's stupid.

[Dream Theater]

What's stupid?

[Ðanisty]

What's stupid? Geolibertarianism

[jonny]

But this is all getting irrelevant. If someone has the time to read one paragraph, I gave you the link and my opinion. Feel free to contribute something meaningful.
I think it's stupid.

From what I read on the all-knowing Wiki, I agree.

[Dream Theater]

So you two think geolibertarianism is stupid. That's not saying much. I think Bush is stupid. Does my statement give any proper indication as to why? Please, follow up with some details. For all I know you think Henry George looks stupid.

Why do you think a source of wealth that originates outside of human actions can be used to create inequality?

[Ðanisty]

So you two think geolibertarianism is stupid. That's not saying much. I think Bush is stupid. Does my statement give any indication? Please, follow up with reasons why.

Why do you think a source of wealth that originates outside of human actions can be used to create inequality?
I'm sure there is an article somewhere on the internet that supports my point of view.

[Dream Theater]

All articles I've read against geoism claim that one has rightful ownership over land they've mixed labor with. That's a very arbitrary claim, and it ignores Locke's proviso. The exclusive use of land without any compensation to the landless creates a forceful hierarchy.

(Har, har).

[Ðanisty]

All articles I've read against geoism claim that one has rightful ownership over land they've mixed labor with. That's a very arbitrary claim, and it ignores Locke's proviso.

(Har, har).
Am I really supposed to care?

[Dream Theater]

All articles I've read against geoism claim that one has rightful ownership over land they've mixed labor with. That's a very arbitrary claim, and it ignores Locke's proviso.

(Har, har).
Am I really supposed to care?
Well, if the system you support is potentially creating a hierarchy akin to slavery, that is certainly something to think about.

[Ðanisty]

All articles I've read against geoism claim that one has rightful ownership over land they've mixed labor with. That's a very arbitrary claim, and it ignores Locke's proviso.

(Har, har).
Am I really supposed to care?
Well, if the system you support is potentially creating a hierarchy akin to slavery, that is certainly something to think about. I don't believe it is. In fact, I think the system you promote is akin to serfdom.

[Dream Theater]

You reached that conclusion after not knowing what it was only a few minutes ago?

How is geoism serfdom? Land is still available to everyone. It can be "transferred," although not at anyone's benefit. If applicable, the government could be held to the same playing field and required to pay into the citizen's dividend. People still own property. They still gain wealth from their own labor.

[Ðanisty]

You reached that conclusion after not knowing what it was only a few minutes ago?

How is geoism serfdom? Land is still available to everyone. It can be "transferred," although not at anyone's benefit. If applicable, the government could be held to the same playing field and required to pay into the citizen's dividend. People still own property. They still gain wealth from their own labor.
If you're renting your land, you don't own your property. I feel the same way about covenants actually. I would never buy a piece of property that I couldn't do whatever I wanted with. Owning a house but not the land it sits on is stupid. What good would a house be without the land? I also basically don't give a crap about my community and don't care if my community gives a crap about me. My plot of land is my spot where I don't have to consider everyone else's petty crap that doesn't pertain to me like parks for children. I don't care one bit. Communities are only useful if you fit the family stereotype. Communities don't care about the needs or interests of people without children. I should have the same right to not care about them.

I don't see why it's so astonishing that I can form an opinion in a matter of minutes.

[Dream Theater]

Finally, some discussions. :)

If you're renting your land, you don't own your property.
You're not owning the land, but you're certainly owning the property, and you can take from the land to create new property. You can still plant a garden, or build a house, or create a farm.

I would never buy a piece of property that I couldn't do whatever I wanted with.Then you're never going to buy property. There already exist social restrictions on what you can and can't do with property, and for good reason. You can't pump your music to a decibel level that will wake your neighbors at night. You can't produce a meth lab next to a schoolhouse. You can't set your house on fire in the middle of a populated woodlands.

Living around others is a fact of life. Unless you plan to destroy the rest of humanity, there's no getting around that fact.

Owning a house but not the land it sits on is stupid. Why should you own something that you contributed nothing to at the exclusion of others? That's akin to arguing you can own the moon, or an ocean.

Furthermore, the tax is recognizing your right to use the land if you compensate others for excluding them from its use. People will land appreciated at higher levels will pay more (total) in the LVT, negating any hierarchies that are created from owning land. Anything else is exploitive.

What good would a house be without the land? I also basically don't give a crap about my community and don't care if my community gives a crap about me.
What does your rambling about a community have to do with anything? I don't have children either, and I don't want children. Geoism actually lessens the restrictions communities place on heterodox persons like us two. Since land is no longer a commodity, people don't have to worry about their property values decreasing/increasing. Lower land values are actually beneficial.

Not that it's much of an argument, but if geoism is 'stupid,' then what we have now is even worse since property taxes value improvements as well as the land.

[Ðanisty]

Finally, some discussions. :)

If you're renting your land, you don't own your property.
You're not owning the land, but you're certainly owning the property, and you can take from the land to create new property.You're not making any sense at all.

I would never buy a piece of property that I couldn't do whatever I wanted with.Then you're never going to buy property. There already exist social restrictions on what you can and can't do with property, and for good reason. You can't pump your music to a decibel level that will wake your neighbors at night. You can't produce a meth lab next to a schoolhouse. You can't set your house on fire in the middle of a populated woodlands.

Living around others is a fact of life. Unless you plan to destroy the rest of humanity, there's no getting around that fact.I already own property. I was smart enough to buy in a neighborhood that doesn't have restrictions and covenants.

Owning a house but not the land it sits on is stupid. Why should you own something that you contributed nothing to at the exclusion of others? That's akin to arguing you can own the moon, or an ocean.Why shouldn't I? If I don't own my land, I have no way of securing what I put on my land.

Furthermore, the tax is recognizing your right to use the land. Anything else is exploitive.Yes and I pay my taxes so exactly why shouldn't I own the land?

What good would a house be without the land? I also basically don't give a crap about my community and don't care if my community gives a crap about me.
What does your rambling about a community have to do with anything?


You're the one who's talking about renting land from my community, presumably so the money goes back into the community. What is the community going to do with my rent money other than decide for me what the community should or shouldn't have?

Tell me, if I own a house and I'm renting my land from the community, what happens if the community decides it wants my land for something else?

[Krashlocke]

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t127/tvertner/threadlove.jpg

[Dream Theater]

You're not making any sense at all.Then perhaps you shouldn't make such conclusive statements about an economic system within five minutes of learning about it. Just a suggestion; not trying to sound rude, even though it came off that way. :shifty:

I already own property. I was smart enough to buy in a neighborhood that doesn't have restrictions and covenants.So what? You're still susceptible to social standards. Even now the local government can pass a law that goes beyond what any homeowners' association would dare do. Unless you think people have the right to pump their radios as loud as they can and wake up their neighbors at 12 o-clock at night, there's no real concern you should have.

Why shouldn't I? If I don't own my land, I have no way of securing what I put on my land.]You're making the mistake of assuming exclusive property equates to ownership. It doesn't.

Yes and I pay my taxes so exactly why shouldn't I own the land?The current tax system hurts people who own permanent property like homes, and it helps people who own land. If I sit on land and do nothing with it for ten years, I make money - for absolutely nothing beyond claiming uninterrupted nature is "mine." This is why some geoists advocate the government paying into the tax system as well, to make it a co-equal. National parks are still exclusionary.

You shouldn't own land because you didn't improve on it. You did nothing to it. You shouldn't own the moon, either. You shouldn't own the Atlantic. You shouldn't own the air.

You're the one who's talking about renting land from my community, presumably so the money goes back into the community.

Most of the tax money from the LVT is processed in the form of a citizen's dividend. Meaning that the total revenue is divided between all people equally. If you own no land, you didn't pay into the tax at all, thus you technically get the "most" money back - negating any advantages a landowner has over you. If you own a simple lot (like your home, presumably), you come out with more money from the dividend than you did paying into taxes, but you don't get as much as the landless person. If you own a beach-front condo with oil beneath it, you pay the most in taxes, which means you will probably get a "negative" rate. Businesses will, of course, will divide the cost they incur and attach it to their products and/or services, but most people get way more money than is covered by this additional cost.

Tell me, if I own a house and I'm renting my land from the community, what happens if the community decides it wants my land for something else?At the bare minimum they'd have to compensate you for the house in full, and all permanent fixtures, as opposed to now where the state uses eminent domain with no legal guidelines beyond the word fair (your local jurisdiction could give you a $100,000 for a house appraised at $150,000 and demand you leave). Meaning, under geoism, the community would have to meet your demand for the home value - not the other way around.

[Ðanisty]

I don't really see how this would prevent eminent domain at all. In fact, it sounds like an eminent domain nightmare to me. I'd feel safer in the hands of the government than in the hands of my community which I think proves how little regard I have for community.

I'm not interested in paying someone who doesn't own anything any money.

You're the one who said we only needed to read the first paragraph. ;)

Honestly, it really won't matter what you say though. I still think the idea is stupid.

[Dream Theater]

Eh, to each their own then. I think it's stupid to tax labor and own something nobody has improved upon.

[Ðanisty]

Eh, to each their own then. I think it's stupid to tax labor and own something nobody has improved upon. Just what makes you think people don't improve upon their land?

[Danhalen]

Land isn't constructible. People have no right to use it for wealth purposes - the only source of wealth that should be recognized under our system is labor. That's my argument. So, since land cannot be produced through labor, it should not be used as capital. Is that correct?

[Dream Theater]

Land isn't constructible. People have no right to use it for wealth purposes - the only source of wealth that should be recognized under our system is labor. That's my argument. So, since land cannot be produced through labor, it should not be used as capital. Is that correct?

Yes.

Just what makes you think people don't improve upon their land?Improvements aren't taxed under geoism. I'm not "thinking" anything. I'm stating an obvious. Resources, land, air, and space aren't human creations. Nobody should make wealth from doing absolutely nothing except holding someone hostage. That's a pretty fair statement. I'm sorry that you disagree.

[Ðanisty]

Land isn't constructible. People have no right to use it for wealth purposes - the only source of wealth that should be recognized under our system is labor. That's my argument. So, since land cannot be produced through labor, it should not be used as capital. Is that correct?

Yes.

Just what makes you think people don't improve upon their land?Improvements aren't taxed under geoism. I'm not "thinking" anything. I'm stating an obvious. Resources, land, air, and space aren't human creations. Nobody should make wealth from doing absolutely nothing except holding someone hostage. That's a pretty fair statement. I'm sorry that you disagree.
What you are saying doesn't even make sense. Who is holding someone hostage? Who says someone is doing absolutely nothing?

[Booko]

Look up geoism. Even Friedman acknowledged that is a very realistic approach to the left-libertarian view that land shouldn't create wealth.

Um, ok, explain how land would be better used, taking human motivations into account. We've seen how collective farms work...NOT.

If you're making an argument about inequity, that's another argument.

[Dream Theater]

I sit on land. I call it my own. I get the state to kick you off. Ten years later land values have gone up, and I make money from doing nothing except limiting your access to the natural world.

Now - throw in the necessities in life ... like food, water, and habitable land, and you've just held people hostage. This creates hierarchies in the form of workers.

You do not have the right to make me beg for what already exists. Sorry.

[Danhalen]

Land isn't constructible. People have no right to use it for wealth purposes - the only source of wealth that should be recognized under our system is labor. That's my argument. So, since land cannot be produced through labor, it should not be used as capital. Is that correct?

Yes.I can make land more habitable. I can increase the aesthetic value of land. I can increase the fertility of land.

Supposing that I do these things to a piece of land, do I not have a right to profit from the use of the land I have tended?

[Dream Theater]

Look up geoism. Even Friedman acknowledged that is a very realistic approach to the left-libertarian view that land shouldn't create wealth.

Um, ok, explain how land would be better used, taking human motivations into account. We've seen how collective farms work...NOT.

If you're making an argument about inequity, that's another argument.

The collective state farms in the Soviet Union were actually quite successful. What failed were the forced cooperative projects, which constituted 90% of Soviet agriculture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovkhoz

Regardless, that has nothing to do with geoism. You can still own and operate a farm. You have full rights to the peanuts you plant. Or the corn you grow. You can still hire workers. But you're not using exclusion to resources as a way to create hierarchies. The only hierarchies exist because of your abilities.

Since land is no longer a commodity, it's financially disadvantageous to own it and do nothing with it. Land either 1.) goes to someone who will maximize its use or 2.) goes back to public use as a park, or schoolhouse, or something along those lines.

[Dream Theater]

So, since land cannot be produced through labor, it should not be used as capital. Is that correct?

Yes.I can make land more habitable. I can increase the aesthetic value of land. I can increase the fertility of land.

Supposing that I do these things to a piece of land, do I not have a right to profit from the use of the land I have tended?

The improvements you make aren't taxed. But you still can't own the space you claim for exclusive use.

[Ðanisty]

I sit on land. I call it my own. I get the state to kick you off. Ten years later land values have gone up, and I make money from doing nothing except limiting your access to the natural world.How about speak the same language as everyone else. It sounds like you're giving a scenario where you OWN land that you rent out and decide that you no longer want to rent the property. That would be your right so I'm not seeing what the problem is. The value of the land goes up because land is an asset that appreciates and the economy changes. I guess you have a problem with investments. I really can't figure out what you're talking about otherwise.

Now - throw in the necessities in life ... like food, water, and habitable land, and you've just held people hostage. This creates hierarchies in the form of workers.Nobody is holding anyone hostage. Go find another piece of land to rent or buy.

You do not have the right to make me beg for what already exists. Sorry.
Nobody is making you beg.

[Booko]

So you two think geolibertarianism is stupid. That's not saying much. I think Bush is stupid. Does my statement give any proper indication as to why? Please, follow up with some details. For all I know you think Henry George looks stupid.

Why do you think a source of wealth that originates outside of human actions can be used to create inequality?


OK, here's my opinion after reading the Wiki article. I own my land. I have an interest in improving it because...it's mine. I work to prevent erosion, build the topsoil, and avoid poisoning it.

If I don't own my land...exactly why would I put in that work?

And now let's take this further to agricultural land. What interest does a large agricultural concern have in preserving the land? It's bad enough now with corporate farms, but at least since they "own" their land they expect to get some payback for preserving what they have.

If all they do is "rent" it...they screw it up and walk away.

Your theory is very nice on paper but totally ignores the facts of basic human motivation and behaviour.

[Booko]

You reached that conclusion after not knowing what it was only a few minutes ago?

How is geoism serfdom? Land is still available to everyone. It can be "transferred," although not at anyone's benefit. If applicable, the government could be held to the same playing field and required to pay into the citizen's dividend. People still own property. They still gain wealth from their own labor.


Oh yes, land is available to everyone -- from the state.

And of COURSE we all know that land will be rented out equitably from the state. :rofl:

Unless you're suggesting a return to an agrarian culture, sorry, but this system does not make any sense. All you'll end up with is crop shortages.

[Dream Theater]

Your theory is very nice on paper but totally ignores the facts of basic human motivation and behaviour.

Actually, when it's tested in the real world, it works.

http://www.marylandlandtax.org/

Hong Kong uses something remarkably similar as well.

This debate is kind of hysterical since property taxes are accepted throughout the world and yet they put off improving land since it equates to a higher tax. If you renovate your house, you pay more taxes under the current tax system. If you renovate your house under geoism, you don't.

And now let's take this further to agricultural land. What interest does a large agricultural concern have in preserving the land? It's bad enough now with corporate farms, but at least since they "own" their land they expect to get some payback for preserving what they have.

If you don't preserve your land, you're not going to make money off of using it. As opposed to now under an ownership system where these large farms can sell open space regardless if it goes to hell.

[Ðanisty]

And now let's take this further to agricultural land. What interest does a large agricultural concern have in preserving the land? It's bad enough now with corporate farms, but at least since they "own" their land they expect to get some payback for preserving what they have.If you don't preserve your land, you're not going to make money off of using it. As opposed to now under an ownership system where these large farms can sell open space regardless if it goes to hell.


You completely ignored her point. The point was that if they don't own the land, they have no reason to stay on it. They could just use it up and move to a different plot of land.

[Dream Theater]

You reached that conclusion after not knowing what it was only a few minutes ago?

How is geoism serfdom? Land is still available to everyone. It can be "transferred," although not at anyone's benefit. If applicable, the government could be held to the same playing field and required to pay into the citizen's dividend. People still own property. They still gain wealth from their own labor.


Oh yes, land is available to everyone -- from the state.

And of COURSE we all know that land will be rented out equitably from the state. :rofl:

Unless you're suggesting a return to an agrarian culture, sorry, but this system does not make any sense. All you'll end up with is crop shortages.

Yeah, the people in Hong Kong are dying of starvation and having their access to land restricted. :rofl:

This is worse than deciding who you want to pick for president after reading about them five minutes ago.

[Dream Theater]

And now let's take this further to agricultural land. What interest does a large agricultural concern have in preserving the land? It's bad enough now with corporate farms, but at least since they "own" their land they expect to get some payback for preserving what they have.If you don't preserve your land, you're not going to make money off of using it. As opposed to now under an ownership system where these large farms can sell open space regardless if it goes to hell.


You completely ignored her point. The point was that if they don't own the land, they have no reason to stay on it. They could just use it up and move to a different plot of land.

Except your fixed assets are going to suffer a price reduction. And when you sell that property, you're going to lose money.

[Booko]

[quote=Dream Theater;100474]Look up geoism. Even Friedman acknowledged that is a very realistic approach to the left-libertarian view that land shouldn't create wealth.

Um, ok, explain how land would be better used, taking human motivations into account. We've seen how collective farms work...NOT.

If you're making an argument about inequity, that's another argument.

The collective state farms in the Soviet Union were actually quite successful.

And your source for this is precisely what?

More food was grown in personal truck gardens than on those collective farms. If they hadn't had personal gardens, the Soviets would've had even less food on store shelves than they did. I was alive then and hosted quite a number of visitors, both before and after the USSR's demise.

What failed were the forced cooperative projects, which constituted 90% of Soviet agriculture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovkhoz


a.k.a. "collective farms." I'm NOT talking about where a group of people got access to lane and had the profits from their work.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with geoism. You can still own and operate a farm. You have full rights to the peanuts you plant. Or the corn you grow. You can still hire workers. But you're not using exclusion to resources as a way to create hierarchies. The only hierarchies exist because of your abilities.


There will always be hierarchies. Even the USSR had hierarchies. The party was the aristocracy and the rest were peasants. Until recently, the Chinese form was similar. Well, party members still have advantages that others do not.

All you want to do is trade one hierarchy for another.

I'm all for the notion that no one should be living in blinding poverty, and most particularly as long as they are able and willing to work, but this will not be solved by swapping one broken economic system for another. Most particularly when the "new" economic system has already been tried and proved itself a failure.

Laizze-faire capitalism is a failure as well, imnsho. It just hasn't flamed out with quite as spectacular a show.

Perhaps we would be better off seeing what works and what doesn't and try to create something new rather than repeat the sad mistakes of the past. We have a lot of human experience to build on.

Since land is no longer a commodity, it's financially disadvantageous to own it and do nothing with it. Land either 1.) goes to someone who will maximize its use or 2.) goes back to public use as a park, or schoolhouse, or something along those lines.


Some land is better off with us not doing anything with it, thanks.

And I am hardly doing "nothing" with the land that I own. I live here, and am increasing populations of native flora and fauna.

[Ðanisty]

This debate is kind of hysterical since property taxes are accepted throughout the world and yet they put off improving land since it equates to a higher tax. If you renovate your house, you pay more taxes under the current tax system. If you renovate your house under geoism, you don't.I don't know anyone who does this. Tell me what motivation I would have in not renovating my house? I bought my house for $80,000. I put about $7000 into renovations. My house is now worth at least $110,000 after 5 years of owning it. Tell me how that is discouraging.

[Booko]

But you still can't own the space you claim for exclusive use.

Really. Perhaps you should ask why I bother to plant veggies to give to the Food Bank (cf. "Plant a Row"), since you don't seem to think I have any "right" to keep the local yahoos from trampling in my veggie garden whenever they see fit.

[Dream Theater]

But you still can't own the space you claim for exclusive use.

Really. Perhaps you should ask why I bother to plant veggies to give to the Food Bank (cf. "Plant a Row"), since you don't seem to think I have any "right" to keep the local yahoos from trampling in my veggie garden whenever they see fit.

Okay. Booko. You're not making any sense. What are you even arguing against? You clearly don't know what geoism entails. "Use rights" do not mean you can't stop someone from running onto your garden.

[Dream Theater]

This debate is kind of hysterical since property taxes are accepted throughout the world and yet they put off improving land since it equates to a higher tax. If you renovate your house, you pay more taxes under the current tax system. If you renovate your house under geoism, you don't.I don't know anyone who does this. Tell me what motivation I would have in not renovating my house? I bought my house for $80,000. I put about $7000 into renovations. My house is now worth at least $110,000 after 5 years of owning it. Tell me how that is discouraging.

Property taxes adjust to your improvements. You're paying taxes for a $110,000 house. Land value tax is blind to your labor. The property tax thinks it's grounds for taxing you more.

[Booko]

Your theory is very nice on paper but totally ignores the facts of basic human motivation and behaviour.Actually, when it's tested in the real world, it works.

http://www.marylandlandtax.org/ (http://www.marylandlandtax.org/)

What does this link have to do with the price of tea in China? Last I heard, they were still issuing deeds in Maryland and people still "own" land.

This debate is kind of hysterical since property taxes are accepted throughout the world and yet they put off improving land since it equates to a higher tax. If you renovate your house, you pay more taxes under the current tax system. If you renovate your house under geoism, you don't.

A house is not land. Please stop conflating things. It only confuses what you're trying to communicate.

And now let's take this further to agricultural land. What interest does a large agricultural concern have in preserving the land? It's bad enough now with corporate farms, but at least since they "own" their land they expect to get some payback for preserving what they have.

If you don't preserve your land, you're not going to make money off of using it.


Pure rubbish. You can grow crops for quite a few years and completely deplete the topsoil, but until that happens you'll make money.

As opposed to now under an ownership system where these large farms can sell open space regardless if it goes to hell.

Which is no different except of course they bought the land and they will lose on their investment when they try to sell their ruined land. Any farmer with a couple of brain cells will notice the topsoil is crap and they won't be willing to pay anything for it.

Under a "rent" scenario they just walk away and the next poor sod gets to deal with it.

Land can depreciate and not everyone makes money on their investment. You seem to think everyone makes money. Well, they don't.

[Ðanisty]

But you still can't own the space you claim for exclusive use.

Really. Perhaps you should ask why I bother to plant veggies to give to the Food Bank (cf. "Plant a Row"), since you don't seem to think I have any "right" to keep the local yahoos from trampling in my veggie garden whenever they see fit.

Okay. Booko. You're not making any sense. What are you even arguing against? You clearly don't know what geoism entails. She's making perfect sense! You are the one who isn't making any sense. Why can't we own space and claim it for exclusive use? How are we supposed to protect our assets? Hell, how are we supposed to protect ourselves? If I don't have the right to call a police officer and have him haul someone off my property, how am I supposed to prevent some rapist or murderer from breaking into my house? How am I supposed to have any privacy whatsoever if it's okay for some creep to peek through my windows because I "don't own my property outside of my house"? How would people be able to keep freaks from kidnapping their children out of their backyard? Geoism might not address any of these things, but it damn well should.

This debate is kind of hysterical since property taxes are accepted throughout the world and yet they put off improving land since it equates to a higher tax. If you renovate your house, you pay more taxes under the current tax system. If you renovate your house under geoism, you don't.I don't know anyone who does this. Tell me what motivation I would have in not renovating my house? I bought my house for $80,000. I put about $7000 into renovations. My house is now worth at least $110,000 after 5 years of owning it. Tell me how that is discouraging.

Property taxes adjust to your improvements. You're paying taxes for a $110,000 house. Land value tax is blind to your labor. The property tax thinks it's grounds for taxing you more.
Actually, I'm not paying taxes for $110,000. I have a homestead exemption that locked my value in place when I purchased the house. But even if I was paying taxes on $110,000, what's wrong with that?

[Booko]

Yeah, the people in Hong Kong are dying of starvation and having their access to land restricted. :rofl:

Last time I looked, the US was not Hong Kong. HK is a very small extremely populated decidedly NOT agrarian nation. Apples and oranges. I'm glad this works for them. That provides no assurance that it works everywhere.

This is worse than deciding who you want to pick for president after reading about them five minutes ago.


Irrelevant.

Actually, this "comparison" qualifies more as an epic fail.

[Booko]

If you don't preserve your land, you're not going to make money off of using it. As opposed to now under an ownership system where these large farms can sell open space regardless if it goes to hell.


You completely ignored her point. The point was that if they don't own the land, they have no reason to stay on it. They could just use it up and move to a different plot of land.

Except your fixed assets are going to suffer a price reduction. And when you sell that property, you're going to lose money.


Stop confusing land with buildings. They are not the same.

[Dream Theater]

a.k.a. "collective farms." I'm NOT talking about where a group of people got access to lane and had the profits from their work.You've got it backwards. If you recheck the article, it would tell you that.

State farms operated like our current state operations. The state payed people a fixed income per year. The cooperative farms were forced profit-sharing. They took away XX% of what they made.

Anyway, as I said - this is just a distraction from the topic at hand, since private farms would still exist.

There will always be hierarchies. Even the USSR had hierarchies. The party was the aristocracy and the rest were peasants. Until recently, the Chinese form was similar. Well, party members still have advantages that others do not.
Good grief. I'm not arguing against hierarchies. I'm arguing against forced hierarchies. It's not wrong to request my watch if I want to learn some karate from you. It is wrong to say I can't use the only oasis in the desert unless I do what you want.

Capiche?

but this will not be solved by swapping one broken economic system for another. Most particularly when the "new" economic system has already been tried and proved itself a failure.Actually, you're completely wrong in your judgment. By comparing it to the Soviet Union you've only showed that you're ignorant about geoism. That's not a bad thing, but you're arguing against me for stupid reasons - I said nothing about collectivization, nor allowing people to use your garden.

Some land is better off with us not doing anything with it, thanks.Which is why it turns over to public use as a park, or forest. Or you can just not use it and enjoy hunting grounds. Whatever.

[Booko]

But you still can't own the space you claim for exclusive use.

Really. Perhaps you should ask why I bother to plant veggies to give to the Food Bank (cf. "Plant a Row"), since you don't seem to think I have any "right" to keep the local yahoos from trampling in my veggie garden whenever they see fit.

Okay. Booko. You're not making any sense. What are you even arguing against? You clearly don't know what geoism entails. "Use rights" do not mean you can't stop someone from running onto your garden.


Then you should attempt a little actual explanation, since everything you've written so far leads me to believe that anyone should be able to roam anywhere they like. YOu know, us evil landowners prevent the poor peasants from access, just like poaching was considered a capital crime in England because the overlords wanted the game all for themselves ...and the peasants can just starve.

If you didn't want to sound like that, then you probably should've written something else.

[Dream Theater]

I already said the whole purpose of the tax is to use land for your exclusive purposes. It's a deal. "I get this land so long as I pay the tax, and you get the tax money."

[Ðanisty]

It is wrong to say I can't use the only oasis in the desert unless I do what you want.

Capiche?No, I don't "capiche." Nobody is saying that you can't use the only oasis in the desert.

That's not a bad thing, but you're arguing against me for stupid reasons - I said nothing about collectivization, nor allowing people to use your garden.What? That was not her point. Her point was that she should have a right to tell hooligans and vagrants to stay the hell out of her yard and off her veggies.

Which is why it turns over to public use as a park, or forest. Or you can just not use it and enjoy hunting grounds. Whatever. Land like that already exists. Seriously, like....ALL over the place.

[Ðanisty]

I already said the whole purpose of the tax is to use land for your exclusive purposes. It's a deal. "I get this land so long as I pay the tax, and you get the tax money."
I wish you would quit talking about taxes because I can't tell if you're talking about taxes that already exist or these imaginary taxes you want to implement.

[Booko]

Good grief. I'm not arguing against hierarchies. I'm arguing against forced hierarchies. It's not wrong to request my watch if I want to learn some karate from you. It is wrong to say I can't use the only oasis in the desert unless I do what you want.

Capiche?

No, you're discussing an issue regarding gov't, and that implies forced hierarchies.

I presume if I fail to pay my "rent" to the state I will be forced off the land by the state. And I presume if I don't think the way the state allocates land rents is equitable, I will be "forced" to just put up with it.

And I'm sorry, but I'm not so naive as to beleive that the *humans* in gov't are not going to favor their friends and family members. I'm too old to have such a naive view of the world, sorry.

but this will not be solved by swapping one broken economic system for another. Most particularly when the "new" economic system has already been tried and proved itself a failure.Actually, you're completely wrong in your judgment. [/quote]

There appears to be a consensus of one on this issue.

[Dream Theater]

What? That was not her point. Her point was that she should have a right to tell hooligans and vagrants to stay the hell out of her yard and off her veggies.


Which I said was perfectly legitimate.

Okay, I'm off to go eat and be merry. Good day, ladies.

[LC1735]

Look up geoism. Even Friedman acknowledged that is a very realistic approach to the left-libertarian view that land shouldn't create wealth.

Why don't you just tell me about it? You're the one who is trying to do the convincing. And you didn't answer any of my questions.

Your questions are ridiculous.

Why tell you something others can say better? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

I don't think his questions are ridiculous. I read your link and I still have the same questions as Jonny.

[Ðanisty]

I hope when you come back you'll address everything we've posted.

[Booko]

I already said the whole purpose of the tax is to use land for your exclusive purposes. It's a deal. "I get this land so long as I pay the tax, and you get the tax money."
I wish you would quit talking about taxes because I can't tell if you're talking about taxes that already exist or these imaginary taxes you want to implement.

I'm in the same boat. First we're "renting" land, and then it's not really rent...it's more like property taxes, sorta...oh...we already pay those.

So far it reads more like sophistry.

[Ðanisty]

Okay here's what I think all of this means. If you want to live somewhere, you can rent an existing house on someone else's land or you can rent land and built a house on it. You can own the house, but not the land. Why anyone would do this, I'm still not sure. What if I build a house and the community decides my land should be used for something else? What am I supposed to do about my house? Am I supposed to pay to have it moved? Let it get demolished and take a loss? Houses are not personal property. They are real property considered to be affixed to land. Unless you living a mobile home, it's not supposed to be mobile.

The rent that gets paid to the community gets divided evenly among everyone in the community whether or not they own a house. So, people who don't put any money into the system get something back. Somehow, I'm not inspired to build a house and give my money to someone who hasn't built a house. Since this money doesn't go directly to the community and instead gets divided among community members, I imagine there would have to still be some kind of tax in there somewhere for community improvements, etc.

If I don't rent any land, anyone could come onto my property because it belongs to everyone. Does anyone else think this sounds like paying the mafia for protection?

[LC1735]

What? That was not her point. Her point was that she should have a right to tell hooligans and vagrants to stay the hell out of her yard and off her veggies.
Which I said was perfectly legitimate.

Okay, I'm off to go eat and be merry. Good day, ladies.

I also did not understand what Dream Theater was talking about. Booko and Danisty would ask questions and he would just insult them. I didn't hear any explanation from him.

[Danhalen]

I can make land more habitable. I can increase the aesthetic value of land. I can increase the fertility of land.

Supposing that I do these things to a piece of land, do I not have a right to profit from the use of the land I have tended?

The improvements you make aren't taxed. But you still can't own the space you claim for exclusive use. So you are claiming it is not my right to charge for the use of land that I have spent my labor on to improve.

Why should I not have the benefit of earning capital for improving land and then allowing others to reap the benefits of my labor?