Homesteading for Fun and Survival
What can homesteading mean in a world without frontiers? We argue that examples are all around us. Whenever people are confronted with the need to make sense of government-owned space (public property), they assume a kind of ownership without formal title. At an Auburn football game, for example. To watch a town be transformed in a matter of hours, from unoccupied to completely occupied, and do so in an orderly fashion, without any titles to property being issued, and conflict kept to a minimum, is a thing of enormous beauty, a testament to the capacity of people to organize themselves in the absence of a central planner or formalized rules. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (108)
N. Joseph Potts
One of the subjects this article touches on is called appropriation in libertarian (homesteading) theory. To me, the extreme case of this has always been associated with mineral rights (oil, rubies, gold, diamonds), with examples cropping up in places like Kimberley, South Africa (diamond- and gold-mining pits). Claims there were small, numerous, adjacent, and, as always, defended (and sometimes attacked) with lethal force.
But one question about appropriation theory has always bothered me: what about nature preserves? I see a mountain, or a valley, and I propose to PRESERVE it exactly as it is. Doing so most definitely CAN create a valuable good (access to pristine nature). But have I mixed my labor with the natural resource by merely preserving them (perhaps fencing them in, perhaps keeping others from entering it, or even looking at it)?
I'd love to find an explanation of THIS situation that is consonant with libertarian appropriation theory. If you've got one, think about e-mailing me directly (as well as posting).
Published: April 4, 2006 10:29 AM
Keith
Its the "dibs" system. Any person who grew up with siblings knows it.
I'd be curious if this applies across cultures. Maybe its only a "western" thing (although the info on Tiananmen Square suggests it isn't).
Published: April 4, 2006 10:43 AM
Angelo
What a well researched, tightly written article.
Published: April 4, 2006 10:49 AM
Paul D
Mr. Potts: tourism and pharmaceutical research might justify such a claim. I agree, it's a really good question and it would be nice to have some ready answers, just as libertarians have answered the security-without-a-state question.
Published: April 4, 2006 11:49 AM
Mitche Leigh Hunt
You mentioned that "Christopher Columbus can't show up to North America and declare that he owns it all . . ." However, he did exactly that, which was doubly validated by the most powerful law-giving forces on earth. First, his attempts to gain the greatest mercantile advantage for his Spanish backers (relative to Europe's other ancient regime monarchies) was validated by the unequal division of The Americas between the Spanish and Portuguese crowns by the pope, as God's real estate representative on earth AND, not so incidentally, a relative of Ferdinand and Isabella. Secondly, when Europe's other crowned heads followed the Spanish lead into the New World, they cobbled together the Doctrine of Discovery to keep their conquests separated one from the other. When these lands came under the control of the United States these entailments as well as ensuing sovereign land laws came with them.
At that time and over time to this time the legalities of these declarations of Western European conquest have made a lot of difference to a lot of people -- particularly to the various ethic nationalities of Native Americans, many of whom still endure federally controlled lives on reservations of federal lands.
Published: April 4, 2006 11:59 AM
Keith
Qoute from ML Hunt: "... "Christopher Columbus can't show up to North America and declare that he owns it all . . ." However, he did exactly that, ..."
So he practiced his culture when he got to America. It wasn't the nicest thing to do, but it was definitely the customary thing to do. I think you're judging the past be standards that didn't exist then.
Qoute from ML Hunt: "At that time and over time to this time the legalities of these declarations of Western European conquest have made a lot of difference to a lot of people -- particularly to the various ethic nationalities of Native Americans, many of whom still endure federally controlled lives on reservations of federal lands."
I'm curious, how long do your ancestors have to live in a place before they are considered "native"?
Published: April 4, 2006 12:18 PM
Randall Holcombe
Interesting article! But it raises an interesting question. According to Rothbard, once you've homesteaded the property, it's yours in perpetuity (unless you sell it or otherwise transfer ownership to someone else, or abandon it). I suppose you'd say beachgoers abandon their claim when they leave after a day at the beach; the same with tailgaters. But the question is: how do we determine if property is abandoned?
This may not apply directly to your examples, because nominally the "government" owns the property you discuss, but just in general, how would you determine if property is abandoned, or just temporarily not used? What if I, a tailgater, set up in a location only to be told by another tailgater who arrives later, "This is my spot. I park here every home game during football season?" Or more abstractly, in anarcho-capitalism, I start farming a piece of unused land only to be told later, after I've made improvements to the property, "This is my land that I homesteaded a decade ago. It was just temporarily unused, but now I'm back and ready to use it again."
When the government keeps track of land titles, this isn't a problem. We just go to the county courthouse and find out who as title. But in anarcho-capitalism this isn't an option... nor is it in Hernando de Soto's Peru, where one of the things he cited as a shortcoming there was people who were homesteading property but did not have a clearly recognized title.
So, my short question is, how can we tell whether property is abandoned, or just temporarily not being used by an owner who earlier homesteaded it?
I did enjoy the piece, and as you can see, I found it quite thought-provoking!
Published: April 4, 2006 1:08 PM
Manuel Lora
This is something that I have thought of before. When do things become "res nullius"?
In my opinion, the answer is, quite simply, it depends. It would depend on, believe it or not, society and tradition, even in anarcho-capitalism.
For example, when is it proper to claim an abandoned car as yours? There would be some procedures. You'd call the owner, road owner,
police. Surely you can't just grab it after one day, nor have to wait 10 years.
Another example: If I find money on the street, you can be almost certain that it's been abandoned and that it's yours. Why? Because it's "common sense" and general knowledge that people who drop money and realize they've dropped money mmediately try to recover it. Thus, unless it's some sort of trap or an unusual situation, I'd be sure that it's unowned.
In terms of land, the answer is, again, it depends on the particular circumstances. If I am a farmer and plant corn, its density is high. Thus, if I suddenly reduce the overall acreage of my harvest, it would have, in my opinion, a high elasticity and the owned area on the perimeter would shrink and become unowned. However, if I am planting
coconut trees, where the space between them is higher than corn, then if I reduce my harvest of coconut plants, the area by which my property is reduced would be comparatively smaller than that of corn since everyone knows, particularly between farmers, the physical nature of harvesting and the requirements of planting things.
But all this is just living on a barebones by-default libertarianism and I don't think anarchy would be like that. I would see that things of importance (land, cars, etc.) would be registered by someone. The road owner perhaps, an insurance company, a mortgage company, a deed
and title register, etc. I doubt that in anarcho-capitalism people would debate theories of homesteading. Such a society would have agencies to solve these things by contract and litigation rather than theory. The agencies would have established accepted principles and figured out particular details already.
Published: April 4, 2006 1:11 PM
Paul Edwards
Randall: "We just go to the county courthouse and find out who as title. But in anarcho-capitalism this isn't an option"
Manuel: "...things of importance (land, cars, etc.) would be registered by someone. The road owner perhaps, an insurance company, a mortgage company, a deed and title register,"
I think this nails it. There is nothing of value under the sun that the state provides, that cannot be better provided by the market. And this includes the recording of titles to property.
Published: April 4, 2006 1:28 PM
jeffrey
I've not read Hernando de Soto on this topic but I gather that his crucial error is in thinking that a state-granted title is necessary to somehow confer ownership rights, rather than seeing a title as a market-based institution that merely codifies and documents the justice of existing ownership.
Published: April 4, 2006 1:57 PM
Curt Howland
Having dealt with the Society for Creative Anarchism for quite a while, I have seen this in action repeatedly.
At an event, people camp out. The exact same process occurs with areas reserved for/by individuals, groups, even a large portion of the available space for a single group but only if that group is proportionately large (such as the Great Dark Horde at the Pennsic War).
As Manuel Lora addresses, it is indeed a matter of recognizing practical limits of use. The word "legitimate" is a social term, derived by consensus, variable because of location or purpose, the embodiment of the "social standard" which also covers such areas as legitimate uses of force.
One awful effect of having so much government has been a loss of respect for consensus.
Published: April 4, 2006 2:18 PM
Jonathan Roth
I'm just thinking off the cuff, but for the nature preserve problem it seems that the only way a property right could be established is through procurement (buying or merely showing up and mixing labor) and maintenance (telling people you were there first when they show up). In this case, it seems that the way labor would be mixed is by labeling the border of the preserve and by maintaining that border by patrolling it and using force to make violators stay out. If the group claiming ownership over the preserve is unable to maintain their claim because they don’t have enough staff on hand to maintain it (the claim is excessive), then others would move in and make claims much like the huge Mardi Gras tarp example cited in the article.
Published: April 4, 2006 2:37 PM
Manuel Lora
The case of Mardi Gras is different since the tarp covers an entire area. With a mountain, surrounding it would not be the same as "covering" the inside. Can you homestead inner areas by homesteading just its perimeter? Probably not.
Published: April 4, 2006 2:57 PM
J. H. Huebert
So, my short question is, how can we tell whether property is abandoned, or just temporarily not being used by an owner who earlier homesteaded it?
This strikes me as a question for which libertarian theory has and needs no answer. It is simply something for private courts or title agencies to work out, and it could change over time depending on people's preferences and customs, and technology.
Published: April 4, 2006 3:41 PM
J. H. Huebert
Ah, I see Mr. Lora made my point already above. Anyway, this just goes to show that not even hardcore Rothbardians think there's an a priori answer for everything!
Published: April 4, 2006 3:47 PM
Lisa Casanova
Randall,
Yours is an interesting question. I would think that if I own a piece of land, I need to do something to it, like put up a fence and a sign saying "this is mine and I'm coming back for it." If I simply leave the land for a decade and do nothing, never even come back to look at it or hang a sign that says "this is mine", then I would say my ownership rights could be considered to have lapsed. I'm sure this has some problems, but it seems like ownership and abandonment could be clarified if you had to occasionally have some contact with your property (yourself or through some sort of agent) in order to keep it, rather than building a fence and leaving for the next 20 years.
Published: April 4, 2006 8:08 PM
Manuel Lora
Another thing to consider is whether property should by default be inherited. If this is the case, then my wife or kids become the next owners of that property.
I agree with Mr. Huebert that this is a bit of a nebolous issue and there can be no right answer except perhaps in the most basic of examples. Courts and title agencies, over time, would adapt.
Published: April 4, 2006 9:37 PM
shanghai
Anyone who thinks that Tiannamen was well ordered in '89 was simply not there, I was, it was a rabble, albeit a well intentioned one.
Published: April 5, 2006 12:54 AM
Paul Marks
I agree with one of the comments above that you do not need to chop down a forest to own it.
If someone arrives in a wood that no one has been to before and lives there (not just visits a tiny bit of it and then claims rights over it like Chris C.) then, of course, that person owns the place (no "mixing of labour" needed - other than walking about, which is labour of a sort I suppose).
The interesting question is what if other people were there before.
One tribe drives off or kills another tribe (the new tribe having either individual or some form of group ownership - the idea that that tribes had no notion of land ownership is a myth). Do white people then have the right to drive the new tribe off or kill them for the land.
I would say "no", but the same rule applies to the white people.
Just because someone's great grandfather bought land from someone who stole it from Indians does not mean it is not that person's land now.
If a person has been in innocent occupation of some land, it does not matter if their tribe stole the land from some other tribe a hundred (or a thousand) years ago.
The person who lives there now has done nothing wrong, and the person who once lived there is long dead.
A thief should not profit from his crime - but the thief is dead.
A victim should always have their property restored - but the victim is also dead.
There must come a time when the Roman law concept of "historical usurpation" kicks in.
Rather than saying "we have to find which Indian owned this bit of land, so that we may try and trace the child of the child of their child" - only to be told (by representatives of another tribe) "they stole it off us anyway".
What matters is who is has long been in peaceful occupation - not what happened a hundred years ago.
For the record I own no land - the above is not self interest.
Published: April 5, 2006 4:32 AM
Tim Brochu
It strikes me that the examples given in the article are not responses to scarcity. In a parking lot for tailgating, there are a more or less fixed number of spots. Once those spots are filled, no one else is allowed into the lot. While there may be a scarcity of all spots for all eventgoers (resulting in some of them going home), there is not scarcity within the lot - everyone gets a spot. I wonder if it would be as peaceful and orderly if twice as many cars were let into the lot.
On the beach and at parades, the proposed peaceful solution to assigning scarce property is for original appropriators (i.e. the guy with the tarp) to give up their property claim to others. If each person's lot can be shrunk down to nearly nothing merely by the usurpation of late-comers, then there is no scarcity of available lots.
If this usurpation of the entrepreneurial claimant's lot by some majority of have-nots is legitimate, then by the same logic a majority of people could walk into a public market and take most of the food, leaving just enough for the seller to keep as his "fair share." Or, a majority of people could use force to take some portion of the earnings of someone wealther than them.
A defender of property rights would say that the tarp guy has the right to use force to defend his property from trespass. At the same time, a "trespasser" who does not recognize his claim has the right to defend himself with force if attacked. If they both literally stick to their guns, they will kill each other in the name of their own libertarian principles. I think a challenge for anarcho-capitalists is to describe how an individual can maintain his subjective claim to scarce property through peaceful means.
Published: April 5, 2006 7:58 AM
tokyo-tom
I'm adding a comment I made separately to Jeff Tucker by email.
I much enjoyed this post, which shows how practical and effective informal homesteading and customary property type regimes can be (and is a glimpse back into the past). We see similar things here in Japan, especially now during the peak of the cherry-blossom season, where people camp out early to stake out desirable sites, and then deal with fending off the hordes who eventually come.
I think a key point is that those laying claim to territory must make a determination about the likelihood of their ability to protect whatever claim they stake. In some situations this might lead to violence, particularly where there are no reasonable alternatives available for newcomers, but in the case of cherry blossom-viewing everyone's in a pretty good mood and rather accommodating; the territory is only temporary, and confrontation is costly to one's own enjoyment.
Where a resource is more valauable, resource users develop a sophisticated common property rights regime than can be quite effective, and may include violence against non-conformist newcomers - the Maine lobster fishery I think is a good example, and the old English commons another. With increases in demand and technological advances, we may see more or less uneasy transfers to private property regimes, as resources can be more readily "staked out" (identified) and defended. Unfortunately, the combination of large consumer demand and the ability to capture/use common or unowned resource means we have large-order tragedy of the commons issues, where we have large-scale resource use, but no one with a vested interest in or ability to protect resources, which are as a result over-utilized and under-supplied. This is the point I was trying to make with Reisman. The guys at PERC (Terry Anderson, John Baden, etc.) are in favor of governmental action to use technology and to
establish private property regimes, so the market and private interests can effectively be harnessed. I am in favor of these types of solutions, that would both eliminate worries about extinction of resources and give a private voice to thos who want to protect such resources - buy owning and protecting them directly, rather than through lobbying action directed towards the government. We could do this with whales and other fisheries, for example.
Published: April 5, 2006 8:15 AM
Neil Craig
While this does show an instinctive regard for property it also shows where what we may call folk wisdom does not fully conform to our normal propertarian rules. As the article repeatedly points out homesteaders do not respect the right of people to "own" more than they can use - this is quite the opposite of the free enterprise system. Bill Gates would not be able to homestead an entire sidewalk.
Now in what we laughingly call real life there are a couple of pretty good practical reasons why Bill Gates should be able to homestead a controlling interest in Microsoft [(A) it works better with a single hand (B) he has a demonstrated competence at the job} but we should recognise that the imbalance of wealth that is the inevitable consequence of capitalism does go against a basic human drive to rough equality. I suspect that this is the reason for the attractiveness of socialism & much religion. Even though it can be argued that giving more money to the rich will increase overall wealth. Jesus & virtually all religious leaders have advocated giving it to the poor & most religions or religious reformations started with a call for more financial equality. There is also the fact that there is a definite positive feedback system in capitalism [ie the rich get richer & the poor get poorer (or rich more slowly in a growing society)].
Thjis is why I do not adopt a purely libertarian position & think some measure of deliberate redistribution is necessary to a stable society.
----------------------
ON an entirely unrelated point I read this article with interest because, with all the universe beyond Earth's atmosphere being "the common heritage of mankind" homesteading is likely to form the legal basis on which space indutries & settlements wii have to work, so it is good to see they seem to be so instinctual.
Published: April 5, 2006 10:21 AM
David J. Heinrich
Neil,
Where, exactly, did Jesus advocate pointing a gun to someone's head and forcing them to hand over money they've earned and worked for? He advocated voluntarily helping others, not stealing from others, giving that money to the poor, then hypocritically claiming to be a philanthropist.
It is also not true that in a purely free-market system, the rich get richer faster than everyone else gets richer. Rather, the reality is that technological improvements and the accumulation of capital benefit the middle class the most.
If there is some drive toward innate more parity, then those who have worked to accumulate wealth will voluntarily give some of it away to charitable causes. If, however, that isn't the case, and such redistribution comes only from those who haven't earned something trying to violently extract it from others, that's just crime.
Published: April 5, 2006 10:31 AM
Paul Edwards
Neil,
“but we should recognise that the imbalance of wealth that is the inevitable consequence of capitalism does go against a basic human drive to rough equality.�
You mean the basic human drive of greed and envy don’t you?
Published: April 5, 2006 10:50 AM
Manuel Lora
Tom says:
Two issues here. In our article, we clearly mention that this is not true homesteading as the public areas (the streets and medians in New Orleans and the parking lots, are managed by the state) are managed by the state. What we talk about are the dynamics of the behavior of homesteading. We are fully aware that it is not happening in any real sense. At the end of the day, if you are still there, the cops will come and kick you out. (Let's leave aside the discussion of whether this is a legitimate behavior to another time).
The other issue is that you scarcity depends on homesteading. It's the other way around. Because of scarcity, homesteading is a coherent and a (to a great extent) conflict-minimizer when people are competing for land.
You misread the example. The point there was to question to what extent people can homestead. Given that people are not killing themselves or fighting about this, there is some consensus; we are just trying to determine what it is. It is not true that late-comers can usurp. As I said, those "usurpers" would be enforcers of property rights and would not respect (nor should they have to!) improperly homesteaded land. Thus, a guy with a tarp homesteads that which he uses and others recognize as valid. More specifically, it would be the space for a few chairs and other things, and not hundreds of feet of unclaimed land
"Public market" Homesteading is the principle of obtaining property from unclaimed resources. If someone steals, that means it has a previous owner and that is not subject to homesteading. That would be a criminal act. In the public market (and I'm assuming by this you mean a collection of private sellers with a general invitation to anyone, and thus "public") you could not homestead anything. The land belongs to its owner and everything else belongs to the retailers or farmers.
He would have the right to use force if he has a legitimate claim. The fact that homesteading is coherent with libertarianism and that it works in real life is an example that people prefer conflict-free solutions than gun battles (unless you're the state).
Homesteading has grey areas, yet it is not wrong because of that. If it's wrong to defend your property, then anyone can go into your house and claim that you don't properly own it.
The objective of the article is to shed light on what seems to be proper homesteading, its boundaries and uses. I think you've missed the point.
Published: April 5, 2006 12:58 PM
Andy Stedman
If the two claimants cannot come to an agreement, market anarchy can surely be no worse than a state at resolving the conflict without violence. Or do you consider the current method--picking a winner and then threatening the loser with such overwhelming force that he (usually) gives up--to be peaceful?
Published: April 5, 2006 2:38 PM
Trevor Acorn
This is all nonsense.
How does mixing one's labor transfer property rights? Logic tells us that property rights are extended to the fruit of one’s labor. If I plant a field of corn, how does it follow that I own the field??? I own the Corn! I own the fruit of my labor, not the land. Homesteading is not a just way of to convert public land to private land. It would be much better if the use of land (landHOLDER instead of landOWNER) where open to bid for a set time (like 10 years) during which the land would be legally protected from other laying claim of the land. This would be fairer and would give a more equal access to those who want to use land but happened to come on the scene late (i.e. our children). It’s stupid to treat land in the same way that we treat a car or a stock. Those things are the fruit of our labor…but land is not.
Published: April 5, 2006 2:53 PM
Vince Daliessio
Neil said;
"Jesus & virtually all religious leaders have advocated giving it to the poor & most religions or religious reformations started with a call for more financial equality."
Jesus also lived under the Roman imperialist system that drained occupied territories like Israel of their wealth, making more middle-class people poor, and making the poor miserable.
The comparison to today's world empire is instructive - government rapaciousness depletes the average and the poor while increasing the wealthy. There is NOTHING inherent in capitalism that would cause this - it is PURELY due to our merchantilist / facist / militarist government, which drains more than half of our aggregate net productivity and pours it down ratholes. Wealth that should be enriching everyone is instead funneled to the very ones who deserve it least - politicians, bureaucrats, and the merchants of death.
Published: April 5, 2006 2:54 PM
Trevor Acorn
Vince,
Actually, there is something "inherent" in capitalism that "depletes the average and the poor while increasing the wealthy," it’s called the law of rent. If you’re interested, I’ve written a bit about it here ( http://thefriars.net/ofkirkandale/?p=45 )
Published: April 5, 2006 3:18 PM
Nigel Platt
I suppose that Trevor Acorn would have us all waiting around for the entire population of the world to show up before we can act, lest we take advantage of the fact that we were there first.
Or, alternatively, we could have a central authority that divides the resources "fairly" among everyone, regardless of when they've "arrived." Politicians first, of course, as they would be doing all the hard work of dividing!
::
Trevor, in your article you conflate the ideas of physical property with value. (There are many other fallacies at play, such as an assumption of a fixed amount of resources, a static market environment, an inherent 'fairness' feature that ought to be fused into our conception of value. . .). Might I recommend Hans-Hermann Hoppe's article "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property" to you?
Here is the link to the article: http://mises.org/daily/1646
There is a book too, which is worth reading, but the article is enough to answer the questions that you brought up in your writing and give you some counter-arguments to think about.
Published: April 5, 2006 3:33 PM
Trevor Acorn
"Or, alternatively, we could have a central authority that divides the resources "fairly" among everyone, regardless of when they've "arrived." Politicians first, of course, as they would be doing all the hard work of dividing!"
Or more simply I might take the georgist approach and levy a tax on land. The proceeds would be redistributed as a citizen’s dividend - much like what we see in Alaska with oil.
As for the rest, I recommend that you read the discussion on this topic in the mises forum. The inherent problem in the anarcho-capitalism system is made blatantly clear. Here's the link:
http://austrianforum.com/index.php?showtopic=87
Published: April 5, 2006 3:44 PM
Graeme Bird
Look I think, if you are going to raise SOME taxes a partial Georgist situation ought to be taken into consideration.
It was Locke who started this homesteading business right. And when he said this up in Scotland it was a damn side colder then it is now right? I imagine that there would have been a lot of abandoned unter-utilised land and a lot of drunken celts too lazy to go up and homestead it at that stage or at least in living memory.
But one wonders if things don't change when all the others come round. Because then the value of your property is as dependent on the other humans efforts as on your own.......
I don't take an absolutist approach here. If in theory we can get by without taxes well and good. But if not I say there is an argument, not for the full Georgist deal (since I think Murray Rothbard has successfully refuted the 100% Georgist deal.....)
But just for a sort of rule of thumb that if you MUST raise money then this is a little bit less offensive then the next least offensive way........ (ho ho a tautology).....
But now at this point I think its important to flip to the other side of the argument.
The Austrian monetary policy would for the most part mean the wonderful GROWTH DEFLATION.
Supposing if nominal GDP was static and prices fell all the time to reflect growth. Then on average we might expect land prices to rise in REAL terms but FALL in nominal terms......
Now all of a sudden all the problems that HG spoke to, all the imbalances.... all the land hoarding, all the industrial depressions (land speculation under fractional reserve gold making downturns nastier) all that Georgist corrective no longer really necessary................
I don't know the ultimate answer but I can say this. If we are going with Cato's low consumer price inflation fiat fractional reserve then without a doubt I'm still a partial Georgist.
Published: April 5, 2006 5:24 PM
Dennis Ford
Since you live in a warm climate, you are obviously unfamiliar with another basic form of homesteading-claiming a public space for private use after a snowstorm.
In Chicago, many residents shovel out an automobile parking space directly in front of their dwellings. Then objects, such as broken lawn chairs and old brooms, are placed in the clean space thus indicating ownership. Not only is the marginal utility increased for otherwise discarded items, but severe penalties would be extracted by the homeowner on anyone who would attempt to claim- jump. These penalties do not have the force of law. They do, however, have the force of force. Mayor Daley has gently railed against this practice in the last couple of years. He can. He has a garage.
Published: April 6, 2006 5:02 PM
Tim Brochu
Manuel,
Thanks for your response to my earlier post (4/5 7:58). Let me first say that I wasn't criticizing the objective of the article, I was exploring some relevant questions that the article raised for me. Seeing that the posts are winding down, allow me to make a lengthy response to some of your comments:
"The other issue is that you scarcity depends on homesteading. It's the other way around. Because of scarcity, homesteading is a coherent and a (to a great extent) conflict-minimizer when people are competing for land."
I think scarcity depends entirely on homesteading. A piece of land that has not been homesteaded is not a scarce resource, since nobody has seen fit to use it to satisfy their wants. When one person homesteads it, it is still not scarce because it is able to satisfy his desire to use the land. When a second person wants to use the same piece of land, it then becomes scarce because it cannot satisfy the demand of both people. The original homesteader has created a condition of scarcity for the late-comer.
"It is not true that late-comers can usurp. As I said, those "usurpers" would be enforcers of property rights and would not respect (nor should they have to!) improperly homesteaded land."
"He would have the right to use force if he has a legitimate claim."
These points raise the question of who should determine what is a legitimate or illegitimate claim? You seem to be arguing that Locke's "mixing labor with land" is objectively and instinctively known, or at least subjective but broadly known within cultural contexts. This means that, as you suggest, the ruling of the majority trumps the claim of the individual, who should have known better before laying down a 100' tarp.
Of course, appealing to a majority opinion puts you on a slippery slope. The effect, as you point out with the 100' tarp guy, is that the original lot he staked gets squeezed down at the behest of his neighbors. All similar lots tend to become equalized by the pressure of their neighbors, whose own lots are enlarged. This is probably fine as long as each lot remains large enough to satisfy the wants of each occupant. But what happens when there are enough people to squeeze lot sizes below the area in which a person can stand? When scarce resources are distributed equally among everyone who wants them, each portion cannot be enough to satisfy even one person.
I would instead argue that the tarp guy is in the right. He speculated that his 100' swath of land would be in demand in the future, and made an entrepreneurial decision to claim it before anyone else realized its value (i.e. before it was scarce). When a late-comer wants to use his lot, he faces a problem of scarcity, since the lot cannot meet both his and the tarp guy's demand for it. The late-comer and the tarp guy will then interact until they agree on a solution to the scarcity and one of them gives up his demand for the lot. This interaction could be a market exchange, a moral argument, or a show of force. They will avoid force if they both prefer to avoid force, but not because the land has been homesteaded.
The tarp guy's claim is semantic, meaning that the tarp, like a sign, communicates his declared ownership of the property to others. I would argue that a semantic claim is the only way a property can be homesteaded. This means that Christopher Columbus could have showed up in North America and declared that he owned it, but to do so he would have had to communicate this claim to everyone who might also wish to own a portion of it. When Columbus met a competitor for his land, they would have to interact until one of them relinquished his claim. If both parties valued homesteading, part of this interaction would be a determination of who claimed it first.
This does not reject mixing labor with land as a means of homesteading. Instead, it recognizes that most acts of labor produce semantic claims of ownership. Planting a stalk of corn every 4 feet in a field is the same as planting a sign every 4 feet that says "Mine."
Semantic claims also solve the problem of expecting everyone to agree to an objective legitimate method of homesteading, as Locke does. It doesn't matter how someone claims something, it only matters that he declares this claim. A conflict between two people over the same piece of property cannot occur until they both declare their claim for that property.
If the tarp guy were a Lockean, he would take a broom instead of a tarp and sweep 100' of the sidewalk until it is sparkling clean. His labor would be instantly apparent to anyone who approached from the bead, beer, and bodily fluid laden sidewalks around him. Does this mean that they would be any more likely not to contest his ownership of that land?
In fact, I think the examples in your article speak to the importance of semantic claims rather than Lockean labor claims. Tarps and chairs at Mardi Gras and umbrellas and towels are the beach are recognized symbolically as "signs" claiming land, within the cultural context of those activities.
I think your article is very insightful in its recognition of various types of homesteading, I just think you've misinterpreted these as Lockean labor claims rather than semantic claims to land.
Published: April 8, 2006 11:22 AM
Manuel Lora
Tim,
Thanks for the reply. I got some comments also.
You are correct. I misinterpreted your original comment.These are all valid points. And as Mr. Huebert pointed out above, I think those issues are pretty open. They will work themselves out. I can't give you an exact a prori answer to how things should be exactly homesteaded. Indeed, part of the points in the article was to point out that though there AREN'T many (or maybe at all) formal rules for homesteading in the examples given, there aren't many fights. People just find ways to get along with minimal or no conflict. Thus, something must be happening there. Unwritten rules, tradition, etc. If that means appealing to a majority for discovery, well, that's what's happening at least in those cases. On the long run, a more free society (also mentioned in several comments above), would sort this out by contract if anything to avoid trying to figure out default situations and theoretical appeals.
The rest of your comments are sound, but remember that the original article was about behavior that mimics real homesteading and not a temporary "rental" of government owned land. Under real homesteading, I doubt that people with huge tarps would be able to keep things, unless, as you said, he really did something along the lines that you mentioned (take a broom, etc.)
Thanks for the comments.
Published: April 8, 2006 11:35 AM
Fred Mann
Here is Rothbard's response to the Georgists from "For a New Liberty" (sorry about the long post):
The Georgists argue that, while every man should own the goods which he
produces or creates, since Nature or God created the land itself, no
individual has the right to assume ownership of that land. Yet, if the land
is to be used at all as a resource in any sort of efficient manner, it must be
owned or controlled by someone or some group, and we are again faced
with our three alternatives: either the land belongs to the first user, the
man who first brings it into production; or it belongs to a group of others;
or it belongs to the world as a whole, with every individual owning a
quotal part of every acre of land. George’s option for the last solution
hardly solves his moral problem: If the land itself should belong to God or
Nature, then why as it more moral for every acre in the world to be owned
by the world as a whole, than to concede individual ownership? In
practice, again, it is obviously impossible for every person in the world to
exercise effective ownership of his four-billionth portion (if the world
population is, say, four billion) of every piece of the world’s land surface.
In practice, of course, a small oligarchy would do the controlling and
owning, and not the world as a whole.
But apart from these difficulties in the Georgist position, the naturalrights
justification for the ownership of ground land is the same as the justification for the original ownership of all other property. For, as we
have seen, no producer really “creates� matter; he takes nature-given
matter and transforms it by his labor energy in accordance with his ideas
and vision. But this is precisely what the pioneer—the “homesteader�—
does when he brings previously unused land into his own private
ownership. Just as the man who makes steel out of iron ore transforms that
ore out of his know-how and with his energy, and just as the man who
takes the iron out of the ground does the same, so does the homesteader
who clears, fences, cultivates, or builds upon the land. The homesteader,
too, has transformed the character of the nature-given soil by his labor and
his personality. The homesteader is just as legitimately the owner of the
property as the sculptor or the manufacturer; he is just as much a
“producer� as the others.
Furthermore, if the original land is nature- or God-given then so are the
people’s talents, health, and beauty. And just as all these attributes are
given to specific individuals and not to “society,� so then are land and
natural resources. All of these resources are given to individuals and not to
“society,� which is an abstraction that does not actually exist. There is no
existing entity called “society�; there are only interacting individuals. To
say that “society� should own land or any other property in common, then,
must mean that a group of oligarchs—in practice, government
bureaucrats—should own the property, and at the expense of expropriating
the creator or the homesteader who had originally brought this product
into existence.
Moreover, no one can produce anything without the cooperation of
original land, if only as standing room. No man can produce or create
anything by his labor alone; he must have the cooperation of land and
other natural raw materials.
Man comes into the world with just himself and the world around
him—the land and natural resources given him by nature. He takes these
resources and transforms them by his labor and mind and energy into
goods more useful to man. Therefore, if an individual cannot own original
land, neither can he in the full sense own any of the fruits of his labor. The
farmer cannot own his wheat crop if he cannot own the land on which the
wheat grows. Now that his labor has been inextricably mixed with the
land, he cannot be deprived of one without being deprived of the other.
Moreover, if a producer is not entitled to the fruits of his labor, who is?
It is difficult to see why a newborn Pakistani baby should have a moral
claim to a quotal share of ownership of a piece of Iowa land that someone has just transformed into a wheatfield—and vice versa of course for an
Iowan baby and a Pakistani farm. Land in its original state is unused and
unowned. Georgists and other land communalists may claim that the
whole world population really “owns� it, but if no one has yet used it, it is
in the real sense owned and controlled by no one. The pioneer, the
homesteader, the first user and transformer of this land, is the man who
first brings this simple valueless thing into production and social use. It is
difficult to see the morality of depriving him of ownership in favor of
people who have never gotten within a thousand miles of the land, and
who may not even know of the existence of the property over which they
are supposed to have a claim.
The moral, natural-rights issue involved here is even clearer if we
consider the case of animals. Animals are “economic land,� since they are
original nature-given resources. Yet will anyone deny full title to a horse
to the man who finds and domesticates it—is this any different from the
acorns and berries that are generally conceded to the gatherer? Yet in land,
too, some homesteader takes the previously “wild,� undomesticated land,
and “tames� it by putting it to productive use. Mixing his labor with land
sites should give him just as clear a title as in the case of animals. As
Locke declared: “As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates,
and can use the product of, so much is his property. He by his labour does,
as it were, enclose it from the common.�4
Published: April 9, 2006 3:16 PM
lorenzo sleakes
There are several flaws in Rothbard's reasoning. The Georgist argument says Labor should never be taxed and the value created by labor should not be taxed. When I purchase iron and transform it into steel the price of the steel over the price of the iron will reflect my labor cost. But you have to first purchase the materials in order to create something from them. Lockian "mixing labor with land" seems to say the ends justify the means. Its OK to just take the iron because I intend to transform it into Steel. By this reasoning its OK for a clothing maker to steal fabric because he intends to turn into clothing. Certainly there was some labor in the mining effort to remove the iron from the ground. But there was also the value of the iron itself in the ground. The price of the iron on the street then is the original value of the iron in the ground plus the cost of the mining labor. Isn't this true of everything known to our common sense in day to day economics - the final cost equals the cost of materials plus the labor costs. But Locke and Rothbard seem to imply that raw materials can be taken for free because someone applied some labor to them.
Rothbard says: "Furthermore, if the original land is nature- or God-given then so are the
people’s talents, health, and beauty. And just as all these attributes are
given to specific individuals and not to “society,� so then are land and
natural resources".
This is a preculiar statement because it is often used by socialists to say that individual talents are not really owned by individuals since they are really products of nature and can morally be confiscated. I think to the contrary that there is a pretty clear boundary line. Individual talents are owned by the individual even though they are a gift of nature because they depend on no government or legal enforecement. Property in Land on the other hand is only owned by the individual when the government respects a deed registered at the county office. Only after taxes have been paid will a police force enforce the boundaries of the deed and evict trespassers. Policemen dont work for free either.
Published: April 10, 2006 8:59 AM
BillG (not Gates)
Fred Mann wrote (from Rothbard):
"George’s option for the last solution hardly solves his moral problem: If the land itself should belong to God or Nature, then why as it more moral for every acre in the world to be owned
by the world as a whole, than to concede individual ownership? In practice, again, it is obviously impossible for every person in the world to exercise effective ownership of his four-billionth portion (if the world
population is, say, four billion) of every piece of the world’s land surface. In practice, of course, a small oligarchy would do the controlling and owning, and not the world as a whole".
it is not necessary for the world to be continuously divided into equal shares all that is necessary is that the economic rent that accrues to the location be shared directly and equally within a community.
the individual controls 4 out of the 5 bundled rights of ownership by justly enclosing an area of the commons:
1. use
2. possession
3. exclusion
4. transferability
but the last bundled right (economuc rent) remains owned in common as an individual right.
Published: April 10, 2006 9:32 AM
BillG (not Gates)
as far as I can tell no one has hit upon the salient point of the problem with homesteading of land...
the enclosure of the commons beyond Locke's proviso FORCES a legal and monetary OBLIGATION on those being excluded that can only be satisfied at the expense of their ABSOLUTE property rights to their labor - in essence denying their right of self-ownership.
the fact of the matter is that you can't have absolute property rights to land AND absolute property rights to labor simultaneously.
the only just system based on the concept of EQUAL LIBERTY is one that has absolute property rights to labor and conditional property rights to land.
Published: April 10, 2006 9:40 AM
PR
lorenzo, individual ownership of one's talents is just as dependent on government enforcement as land ownership is (although anarchocapitalists claim that the dependence is 0 in both cases). A talented musician's right to be free from being kidnapped and forced to write music would be enforced by those same tax-funded police. Is that not a state privilege by the same logic? Certainly socialists would use this to argue that "society" really owns your talents the same way they claim it owns all land and natural resources.
Published: April 10, 2006 9:50 AM
Manuel Lora
"the only just system based on the concept of EQUAL LIBERTY is one that has absolute property rights to labor and conditional property rights to land."
Would you care to elaborate? Who would determine the conditions?
Published: April 10, 2006 9:57 AM
BillG (not Gates)
Manuel Lora wrote:
"Would you care to elaborate? Who would determine the conditions?"
why the market of course (not to be confused with personaal utility) in concert with Locke's proviso (enough and as good left in common for others).
Published: April 10, 2006 3:00 PM
Fred Mann
Lorenzo Sleakes writes:
"Its OK to just take the iron because I intend to transform it into Steel. By this reasoning its OK for a clothing maker to steal fabric because he intends to turn into clothing. "
When we talk about homesteading, we are talking about previously UNOWNED resources. Nobody is suggesting that we can homestead a fabric factory or someone's house, etc..
The question is, how do we acquire property rights in previously unowned resources?
In the earliest days of agriculture, someone must have taken a seed from the wild and planted it in a plot of land, with the expectation of growing a plant for future consumption. But then one might ask "Who is he to take that seed in the first place?". Certainly, he did not create the seed. So the question I have for Georgists is, how does one justify the taking and planting of this seed?
Then we have the question of taxing land based on its value. How does one determine the value of land if there is no market for it -- i.e. if it is not individually owned, bought, and sold? If the value is determined by the value of the products produced on the land, then this is a disincentive to produce higher-order goods. And if the tax value roughly equals 100% of what would be the market value of the land (if this could somehow be determined), then clearly we are confronted with the possibility of creating an even bigger government than we already have!
Then there is the problem of justifying the size/domain of the government. If we are not going to have a world government, then how do the Georgists justify Government A controlling a certain parcel of land, thereby excluding Government B? By what right does Government A control any land at all? Homesteading? Again, if we don't have a world government, then we must have some principle that justifies territorial control. Here we have another manifestation of the same problem, but on a bigger scale (and with the pleasant byproduct of violence that government necessarily brings with it). If the individual is not allowed to own land, then what about two people? Three people? The Georgist, it seems, has to provide some reason that government must be bigger than X, but smaller than Y.
Remember, control of the use of land IS ownership. Therefore, if you are in favor of government control of land, then you can not be opposed to ownership of land, per se.
I have many other points/questions, but I'd like to get some answers from the opponents of anarcho-capitalism first.
Published: April 10, 2006 5:15 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Fred Mann wrote:
"So the question I have for Georgists is, how does one justify the taking and planting of this seed?"
the only way to justify it [the taking of a wild seed] is just how Locke did...
was there "enough and as good left in common for others"?
if there wasn't then economic rent would have attached to that seed - otherwise why would I pay someone a purchase price or rent if I could freely enclose another with as good quality?
Fred Mann wrote:
"How does one determine the value of land if there is no market for it -- i.e. if it is not individually owned, bought, and sold?"
in the Georgist system - land is individually owned...which includes these bundled right:
1. use
2. possession
3. exclusion
4. transferability
it is only the economic rent that remains owned in common as an individual equal access right.
Fred Mann wrote:
"Remember, control of the use of land IS ownership. Therefore, if you are in favor of government control of land, then you can not be opposed to ownership of land, per se."
if the landowner hires a rent collector - does that mean the rent collector owns the land?
of course not...
the government doesn't own the land - the governmnt trades the recognition & enforcement of the title which conveys these budled ownership rights - use, exclusion, possession, transferability to private individuals for the direct and equal sharing of the economic rent (which appears beyond Locke's proviso and determines the extent to which the excudes property right to their labor are violated) which remains owned in common as an INDIVIDUAL equal access right.
Published: April 10, 2006 6:19 PM
Fred Mann
Bill G writes:
the only way to justify it [the taking of a wild seed] is just how Locke did...
was there "enough and as good left in common for others"?
As Rothbard pointed out, Locke was not a particularly systematic or consistent thinker. If this one sentence is meant to encapsulate the justification, then MANY questions still remain.
For example, how is one to know if there is enough left for others? Are we to take a census? (Of course, one might say there is never "enough", since human wants are limitless. That's why the market prices are so valuable for EVERYTHING (especially for land). But market prices can only exist with private ownership.) Also, how do we determine if the remaining seeds are "as good" as the others? The same question goes for land. How much do we need per person? Who decides how "good" certain land is. Certainly all land is not created equal.
But an even bigger question remains for me. What problem, exactly, are the Georgists trying to solve with this plan? I am truly befuddled by this. Is it an attempt to place all original appropriation in the hands of the "fair" government? Is it some kind of attempt at egalitarianism?
I gather from your earlier posts that there will be multiple governments representing various communities. If this is the case, then how does government A justify collecting rent on a certain piece of property, while excluding government B from doing the same? Obviously, every government would want to collect "rents" (taxes) on the most-desireable and largest areas of land. How is this conflict to be resolved?
Furthermore, if there is a market for rents as opposed to full free-market ownership (not sure if there would be), what is to prevent the government from giving prime land at low rates to its friends? This is the problem of bribes, kickbacks, and corruption that goes hand in hand with government. The free market solves this problem by selecting the most transparent and historically dependable protection agencies/insurance agencies. Government allows for none of this.
Finally Bill G writes:
"the government doesn't own the land - the governmnt trades the recognition & enforcement of the title which conveys these budled ownership rights - use, exclusion, possession, transferability to private individuals for the direct and equal sharing of the economic rent (which appears beyond Locke's proviso and determines the extent to which the excudes property right to their labor are violated) which remains owned in common as an INDIVIDUAL equal access right."
This sentence is just about impossible to decode. It also contains the always-disconcerting phrase "owned in common". Suffice it to say, that anything that is owned in common will be abused, destroyed, and/or misallocated.
Published: April 11, 2006 1:35 AM
Peter
Fred: I'm not supporting this Georgist lunacy, but they've made it pretty clear that the government doesn't actually collect any rent/tax; it's just distributed back to "the community" (it's not clear what is meant by "the community", though. If it's not the entire population of the world, why does this particular group have a claim on the "rent" on that land, while other's don't?), so it wouldn't make any difference whether government A or government B collected it (assuming they have the same definition of "the community" to whom it's distributed).
Published: April 11, 2006 6:51 AM
PR
The list of four bundled rights, with a fifth called economic rent, seems completely artificial to me. Surely #1 and #3 are all I need. Possession is a form of use, and transferability is a result of having the right to exclude everyone but the person you are selling to. So-called economic rent is simply a logical consequence of the others as well.
Published: April 11, 2006 7:20 AM
BillG (not Gates)
Fred Mann wrote:
"For example, how is one to know if there is enough left for others? Are we to take a census? (Of course, one might say there is never "enough", since human wants are limitless. That's why the market prices are so valuable for EVERYTHING (especially for land). But market prices can only exist with private ownership.) Also, how do we determine if the remaining seeds are "as good" as the others? The same question goes for land. How much do we need per person? Who decides how "good" certain land is. Certainly all land is not created equal."
BillG responds: the way to determine if "enough and as good are left in common" of anything is if the object in question commands a market value.
why would I pay someone for something that could be had for free?
Fred mann wrote:
"What problem, exactly, are the Georgists trying to solve with this plan? I am truly befuddled by this. Is it an attempt to place all original appropriation in the hands of the "fair" government? Is it some kind of attempt at egalitarianism?"
BillG responds:
simple justice via equal liberty as the logical conclusion of upholding the right of self-ownership.
Locke showed that absolute rights to labor (hence self-ownership) and absolute rights to land can not be derived simultaneously.
Fred mann wrote:
"I gather from your earlier posts that there will be multiple governments representing various communities. If this is the case, then how does government A justify collecting rent on a certain piece of property, while excluding government B from doing the same? Obviously, every government would want to collect "rents" (taxes) on the most-desireable and largest areas of land. How is this conflict to be resolved?"
BillG responds:
it doesn't matter who collects the economic rent as it is owned in common by the individuals within the community so it must be shared equally and directly between neighbors.
if the economic rnet is collected and retained and then spent by the government then the economic rent is owned collectively not in common.
Fredd Mann wrote:
"Suffice it to say, that anything that is owned in common will be abused, destroyed, and/or misallocated."
BillG responds:
many people are unaware that Garret Hardin wrote a follow-up paper to the "Tragedy of the Commons" called "Tragedy of the UNMANAGED Commons"
Published: April 11, 2006 9:33 AM
Paul Edwards
“Suffice it to say, that anything that is owned in common will be abused, destroyed, and/or misallocated.�
Exactly, Fred. The reason for this is not the least because owning in common is a contradiction in terms. In the end, some individual (or small group of individuals) behaves as if he owns it, even if in a temporary custodial fashion with no long term prospect for benefiting from increases in capital value. Therefore this individual will do what he can to maximize his short term gains, at the expense of the long-term losses you allude to.
Published: April 11, 2006 9:59 AM
BillG (not Gates)
Paul Edwards wrote:
"The reason for this is not the least because owning in common is a contradiction in terms. In the end, some individual (or small group of individuals) behaves as if he owns it, even if in a temporary custodial fashion with no long term prospect for benefiting from increases in capital value. Therefore this individual will do what he can to maximize his short term gains, at the expense of the long-term losses you allude to."
BillG responds:
common ownership is not a contradiction in terms.
in NH all surface water over 10 acres and all groundwater is owned in common with the state as the public trustee.
the state has a legal and fudiciary responsibility to protect the common asset and to protect all individual's equal access opportunity rights.
if some individuals enclose more groundwater than the sustainable yield (Locke's proviso) then it is the state's duty and right to use force to protect those being excluded because by neglecting their responsibilities they are allowing a legal and monetary obligation to be forced upon those being excluded - economically harming them (they are being subjected to a tax in kind but not in substance).
Published: April 11, 2006 4:37 PM
Paul Edwards
billg,
"common ownership is not a contradiction in terms."
I agree, that's my mistake. What i really should have said is that public ownership is a contradiction in terms. People do not own a portion of a public resource because they cannot acquire more ownership (shares) nor can they divest themselves of the shares they do own. And this is true regardless of their preference.
On another note, the way you describe your state makes it sound quite wonderful. It compels me to ask: do you have this level of faith in your government in general, or only in the question of how they manage land and water resources.
Published: April 11, 2006 5:09 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Paul Edwards wrote:
"public ownership is a contradiction in terms"
BillG responds:
for the record ownership in common and collective (public) ownership are actually opposite.
one is a group right while the other is an individual right.
Paul Edwards wrote:
"do you have this level of faith in your government in general, or only in the question of how they manage land and water resources."
BillG responds:
as long as the state remains limited to it's sole role - to protect labor-based property rights of individuals and thus their right of self-ownership I have no problem.
Published: April 11, 2006 6:30 PM
Fred Mann
Bill G writes:
"Locke showed that absolute rights to labor (hence self-ownership) and absolute rights to land can not be derived simultaneously."
I'd like to look at this. If you have a link, please send it along. Of course, the key term here is "derived simultaneously". This is not the same thing as saying that they cannot coexist (which they obviously can).
Of course, Locke also said that we are not entitled to more than we can use "before it spoils" (Second Treatise on Govt.). So he clearly places a limit on "acceptable" wealth, and should therefore (among other reasons) always be looked at with suspicion .... unless you believe in egalitarianism ... in which case you should read Rothbard's "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature".
Next, I asked the following question regarding the size/domain of the government(s):
How does government A justify collecting rent over a certain territory, while excluding government B from doing the same?
You responded:
"it doesn't matter who collects the economic rent as it is owned in common by the individuals within the community so it must be shared equally and directly between neighbors."
Unless your definition of "community", as you used it above, means "the whole world", then you have not answered this question. Clearly Government A and B cannot BOTH collect rent on the same parcel of land. Clearly the citizens of Government B do not benefit from the revenues of Government A.
How does Government A come to have exclisive rights to tax a particular parcel of land? Homesteading?
Are you perhaps advocating world government? If so, give the CFR a buzz.
Finally, you say you are promoting "simple justice via equal liberty as the logical conclusion of upholding the right of self-ownership." This is another tricky sentence for me (not sure what "equal liberty" is). But anarcho-capitalism certainly DOES acknowledge self-ownership, and supports the right of every individual to acquire property.
Published: April 11, 2006 11:25 PM
lorenzo sleakes
Liberty, Self Ownership, Freedom are completly inseperable from Land Access. You are a prisoner and cannot move if you have no space to move in - no public roads, parks, beaches, waterways, airways.
You cannot do anything (build a house, farm) if you have no private landholding.
The private landholder gains maximum freedom at the expense of everyone else who looses some freedom to access that land.
Published: April 12, 2006 7:51 AM
BillG (not Gates)
Fred Mann wrote:
"This is not the same thing as saying that they cannot coexist (which they obviously can)"
BillG responds:
I am saying that they (absolute rights to labor and absolute rights to land) can't...that they are infact mutually exclusive.
Fred Mann wrote:
"Of course, Locke also said that we are not entitled to more than we can use "before it spoils" (Second Treatise on Govt.). So he clearly places a limit on "acceptable" wealth, and should therefore (among other reasons) always be looked at with suspicion"
BillG responds:
land is not wealth because it is missing the essential ingidient of wealth which is labor.
the return on land (economic rent) is a legal and monetary claim on the labor of those you are excluding.
immediate for renters and at the time of sale for a buyer.
if all lands are legally occupied then logically one can not have a right to self-ownership...a right being something one is born with and does not have to be purchased or gifted.
Fred Mann wrote:
"unless you believe in egalitarianism ... in which case you should read Rothbard's "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature""
BillG responds:
I only believe in social justice via EQUAL liberty.
Fred Mann wrote:
"Unless your definition of "community", as you used it above, means "the whole world", then you have not answered this question. Clearly Government A and B cannot BOTH collect rent on the same parcel of land. Clearly the citizens of Government B do not benefit from the revenues of Government A. How does Government A come to have exclisive rights to tax a particular parcel of land?
BillG responds:
clearly whomever issues and enforces the title.
Fred Mann wrote:
"Finally, you say you are promoting "simple justice via equal liberty as the logical conclusion of upholding the right of self-ownership." This is another tricky sentence for me (not sure what "equal liberty" is). But anarcho-capitalism certainly DOES acknowledge self-ownership, and supports the right of every individual to acquire property."
BillG responds:
most libertarians can't wrap their arms around a concept like "equal liberty" because they believe that equality has to be traded off against liberty.
this is similiar to believing that you can have absolute rights to labor AND land simultaneously.
the culprit here is the neo-classical/marginal utility school's revolution (of which the Austrian school is a derivative)...
you can't have equal liberty if you treat the natural commons as simply private capital...the classical liberals (French Physiocrats) understood that there are three SEPERATE and DISTINCT factors to production (land, labor and capital).
the neo-classical revolution changed a triparate economic world into a dualistic world (labor vs. capital) and the result is a world that can only give us nasty trade-offs and negative externalities.
Published: April 12, 2006 8:59 AM
Fred Mann
Fred Mann writes to Bill G:
"Unless your definition of "community", as you used it above, means "the whole world", then you have not answered this question. Clearly Government A and B cannot BOTH collect rent on the same parcel of land. Clearly the citizens of Government B do not benefit from the revenues of Government A. How does Government A come to have exclusive rights to tax a particular parcel of land?"
BillG responds:
"clearly whomever issues and enforces the title."
Bill,
You still have not answered this question. I am asking you a "how" question, and you have responded with a "who" answer. This just doesn't make any sense. So, I'll try to boil it down to one simple question:
How does "Government A" come to have exclusive rights to tax a particular parcel of land?
Lorenzo Sleakes writes:
"You are a prisoner and cannot move if you have no space to move in - no public roads, parks, beaches, waterways, airways."
Have you never driven on a private road?
Published: April 12, 2006 1:10 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Fred Mann wrote:
"How does "Government A" come to have exclusive rights to tax a particular parcel of land?"
BillG responds:
first let's agree that the economic rent attaching to all location beyond Locke's proviso is a naturally occuring phenomena as two or more people compete for access to a subjectively determined economic advantage.
this happens even in a state of anarchy.
so the "tax" you are referring to is the "economic rent".
whomever is issuing the title and enforcing it's exclusivity is responsible to insure that those who are being excluded are not being materially disadvantaged by the enclosure.
the way to accomplish this based on labor-based property rights is to insist that the economic rent remain owned in common by direct and equal sharing of the economic rent between neighbors within the title granting authority area.
Published: April 12, 2006 1:29 PM
Yancey Ward
Maybe someone can help me out here. Over the last week or so I have read several discussions on the Georgist system including Rothbard's criticisms and Rothbard's reply to the Georgist's counterarguments. However, I still don't quite understand the Georgists' position.
Is it the position of the Georgists that all taxes should take the form of land property taxes? It seems to me (and to Rothbard) that this tax is purely arbitrary since there is no market for rent in a situation in which the government gets it all. Or is it the position that people own the land, but must use it themselves and not rent it out to others?
I have to admit that I am quite confused.
Published: April 12, 2006 2:06 PM
Fred Mann
Again you misunderstand me. I am referring to the exclusivity BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS, not between neighbors within the title-granting authority area (hence all my examples involving Government A and Government B).
So I will rephrase the question yet again:
How does a government come to have exclusive rights to offer its "services" over a particular TITLE GRANTING AUTHORITY AREA? i.e. Why/how is it that Government A can can exclude Government B from operating in its territory?
Published: April 12, 2006 2:18 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Fred Mann writes:
"How does a government come to have exclusive rights to offer its "services" over a particular TITLE GRANTING AUTHORITY AREA? i.e. Why/how is it that Government A can can exclude Government B from operating in its territory?"
BillG responds:
dunno...not really a concern of mine.
Published: April 12, 2006 2:24 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Yancy Ward wrote:
"Is it the position of the Georgists that all taxes should take the form of land property taxes?"
BillG responds:
Yes - but then there are those that make distinctions between whether or no the economic rent (taxes) need to be returned directly and equally between neighbors as ownership in common vs. if the government collects, retains and spends the money means the economic rent is actually owned collectively not in common.
some would then argue that if the taxes are spent to benefit all equally then it passes the smell test of ownership in common.
then there are folks who call themselves geo-libertarians or geoists who take the georgist analysis and apply it to all areas of the natural commons (land, water, air, minerals, oil, timber, electro-magnetic spectrum) and social commons (corp. charers, intellectual property, currency, etc).
Yancy Ward wrote:
"It seems to me (and to Rothbard) that this tax is purely arbitrary since there is no market for rent in a situation in which the government gets it all."
economic rent attaches to all locations when two or more prople are competing for access.
it may appear arbitrary from a personal utility perspective but from a market perspective with enough data points it is very near to being objective.
Yancy Ward wrote:
"is it the position that people own the land, but must use it themselves and not rent it out to others?"
BillG responds:
no that is the position of individualist anarchists (mutualists)
the difference is that there would be a helluva lot of land to still be homesteaded under a mutualist use and occupancy proviso whereas in a georgist world there would be a helluva lot of economic rent to share.
Published: April 12, 2006 2:42 PM
Fred Mann
BillG responds:
"dunno...not really a concern of mine."
Clearly you do not understand the implications of this distinction. You are saying that it is NOT okay for an individual to claim exclusive rights to land and its "rent", but it IS okay for a GROUP to do so. Yet you provide no justification for this!!!
Published: April 12, 2006 3:01 PM
Yancey Ward
Bill G,
In the competition for unimproved lands, then the sales proceeds go to the government that would then redistribute them in whatever way, correct?
However, what about the case of improved lands? For example, I obtain "title" for a period of time, through a bidding process with others, to some land and build a house. Eventually, the title expires and then I must rebid for the title to the land, and if I am outbid, what happens?
Published: April 12, 2006 3:02 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Yancey Ward wrote:
"In the competition for unimproved lands, then the sales proceeds go to the government that would then redistribute them in whatever way, correct?"
BillG responds:
since I don't believe in the collective ownership of economic rent but rather that the economic rent should remain owned in common as the other bundled rights (use, possession, exclusion, tansferability) are the result of what had originally been owned in common.
thus it is not "redistribution" but rather predistribution.
Yancey Ward wrote:
"I obtain "title" for a period of time, through a bidding process with others, to some land and build a house. Eventually, the title expires and then I must rebid for the title to the land, and if I am outbid, what happens?"
BillG responds:
you sell your house (or disassemble it or put it on wheeels and roll it away) which is your private property as you are no longer the recognized title holder to the land.
Published: April 12, 2006 3:23 PM
Yancey Ward
BillG,
Your system sounds like less liberty to me, not more.
Published: April 12, 2006 3:25 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Fred Mann wrote:
"You are saying that it is NOT okay for an individual to claim exclusive rights to land and its "rent""
BillG responds: I am saying it is justified for an individual to enclose a part of the commons (land) for private use so long as it does not economically harm anyone else.
the landowner collecting and retaining the economic rent is such an infringement.
Fred Mann wrote:
"but it IS okay for a GROUP to do so."
BillG responds:
no - I said it is just for the economic rent to remain owned in common as an INDIVIDUAL equal access right.
so it must be shared directly and equally between neighbors in a community.
Published: April 12, 2006 3:28 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Yancy Ward wrote:
"Your system sounds like less liberty to me, not more."
BillG responds:
actually it creates the greatest amount of equal liberty for the greatest number of people as the absolute right to your labor and thus self-ownership are protected.
kinda counter-intuitive, huh?
that I am making the claim that the Georgist position actually strengthens property rights...
albeit, labor based ones but then again labor is the logical extension of self-ownership and the true basis of property rights.
Published: April 12, 2006 3:32 PM
Yancey Ward
No, BillG, I don't agree. I think it seems counter-intuitive because it is, in fact, wrong. Lets take my example as a study: since I can't guarantee my continued existence in my house on any piece of land without turing over some of the product of my labor in the form of rent or the cost of removing the house to another location. This is no improvement over what we have today. It appears to be eminent domain applied universally.
Published: April 12, 2006 3:56 PM
Fred Mann
Bill G writes:
"I am saying it is justified for an individual to enclose a part of the commons (land) for private use so long as it does not economically harm anyone else."
Who is to make this determination? By what authority do they do so? How is this calculation to be made? Also, if there is no "harm" done, are the property rights absolute?
Bill G also writes:
"I said it is just for the economic rent to remain owned in common as an INDIVIDUAL equal access right. so it must be shared directly and equally between neighbors in a community."
So if all members of the "community" operate on equal plots of land, would there be any need for this rent redistribution plan of yours? In this case, the net effect would be the collection and redistribution of equal amounts of money among all members of the community -- an exercise in futility AND a waste in resources.
Also, I would note that your inability to answer my initial question (i.e. "How does a government come to have exclusive rights to offer its "services" over a particular TITLE GRANTING AUTHORITY AREA? i.e. Why/how is it that Government A can can exclude Government B from operating in its territory?") shows very clearly that you are not working with a complete coherent system.
While I don't personally see any benefits to your "system", it is CLEAR that the citizens of Government B are not able to enjoy the benefits enjoyed by the people of Government A, with their commonly-owned economic rent (which is owned exclusively by the citizens of Government A). Therefore, Government B may be "harmed" by the existence of Government A. This is the recipe for war. You had best figure out an answer to that question!!
Published: April 12, 2006 4:11 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Yancy Ward wrote:
"since I can't guarantee my continued existence in my house on any piece of land without turing over some of the product of my labor in the form of rent"
BillG responds:
but the economic rent isn't the product of your labor it is actually a legal and monetary claim on those you are excluding's labor.
now let's as a hypothetical take the case where the economic rent is only due at the time of a title transfer (sale) if all the appreciated unimproved land value is not retained by the landowner what labor products are they forfieting?
so:
1. the landowner doesn't labor to produce the land itself
2. the landowner doesn't labor to produce the unimproved land value (economic rent)
3. in a pure economic rent sharing scenario there would be no purchase price to land.
Yancy - can you tell me exactly where the labor based property rights of the landowner are being violated?
Published: April 12, 2006 4:48 PM
Peter
You are a prisoner and cannot move if you have no space to move in - no public roads, parks, beaches, waterways, airways.
The obvious logical extension of this: you're a prisoner if there are no public "road" off the planet; you're a prisoner if there's no public "road" out of the universe!
You cannot do anything (build a house, farm) if you have no private landholding.
The private landholder gains maximum freedom at the expense of everyone else who looses some freedom to access that land.
Illogical -- if the first statement is true, the "everyone else who loses some freedom to access that land" loses precisely nothing: they can't do anything if they have no private landholding, right?
Published: April 12, 2006 7:13 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Fred Mann wrote:
"Who is to make this determination [of economic harm]?
BillG responds:
the market does as two or more people compete for access to scarce locations...
Fred Mann wrote:
"By what authority do they do so?"
BillG responds:
the market has no authority although in this case the transaction is not voluntary as inorder to exist you must occupy some space somewhere and if all locations are legally occupied here is no choice in the matter.
Fred Mann wrote:
"How is this calculation to be made?"
BillG responds:
each party within the bidding for access is basing their determination on the subjective amount of economic advantage they may be able to derive in a specific location.
Fred Mann wrote:
"Also, if there is no "harm" done, are the property rights absolute?"
BillG responds:
if by "no harm done" you mean there is no economic rent attached as Locke's proviso is not violated, then yes the property rights of those you are excluding are not being subject to any legal and monetary claim by the landowner.
Fred Mann wrote:
"So if all members of the "community" operate on equal plots of land, would there be any need for this rent redistribution plan of yours? In this case, the net effect would be the collection and redistribution of equal amounts of money among all members of the community -- an exercise in futility AND a waste in resources."
BillG responds:
first of all, it is an economic rent "predistribution plan" not a "redistribution plan"...the land starts out owned in common and the economic rent needs to REMAIN owned in common inorder to uphold hte right of self-ownership, absolute rights to labor-based property, and ultimtaely equal liberty.
secondly, if the plots of land are exactly equal in quality and quantity but one person builds a 10 story apartment complex on plot A and the person owning a contiguous plot of land (B) does nothing to it - the unimproved land value of plot B will rise as the result of the labor of plot A.
Fred Mann:
"how is it that Government A can can exclude Government B from operating in its territory"
BillG responds:
I lived in a homeowners association that operated within a town which operated in a state.
I paid my dues to the homeowners association and they paid their property taxes to the town (which include unimproved land value) and the town paid their taxes to the state.
Published: April 12, 2006 8:07 PM
Fred Mann
Bill,
For now, I'd just like to focus on your last point, because I believe it best illustrates the problem.
I ask:
"How does a government come to have exclusive rights to offer its "services" over a particular TITLE GRANTING AUTHORITY AREA? i.e. Why/how is it that Government A can can exclude Government B from operating in its territory?"
You reply:
"I lived in a homeowners association that operated within a town which operated in a state. I paid my dues to the homeowners association and they paid their property taxes to the town (which include unimproved land value) and the town paid their taxes to the state."
With this analogy, you appear to be saying that there is no conflict, because your "community" is part of a larger structure (a town) which is, in turn, part of a larger structure (a state). But you stop there. Why? If you are attempting to avoid my Government A/Government B conflict scenario outlined above, then you MUST ultimately advocate a WORLD GOVERNMENT! That is the only logical conclusion to your nested-governments scenario that you have presented.
Otherwise, if you acknowledge two or more governments, then the argument I used above applies.
To restate:
Clearly the citizens of Government B are not able to enjoy the benefits enjoyed by the citizens of Government A, with their commonly-owned economic rent (which is owned EXCLUSIVELY by the citizens of Government A). Therefore, Government B is "harmed" by the existence of Government A.
So which is it? World Government or self-contradiction?
Published: April 12, 2006 8:49 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Fred Mann wrote:
"the citizens of Government B are not able to enjoy the benefits enjoyed by the citizens of Government A, with their commonly-owned economic rent (which is owned EXCLUSIVELY by the citizens of Government A)
BillG responds:
the citizens of Government B are made up of Government A1, A2, A3 & A4
I am a member of an organization that advocates devolving state power to town meetings and then confederate town meeting into shire/ward republics based on bio-regions and then confederate the shires into current state boundaries and then confederate the states (VT, NH, ME, and Canadian maritimes) into a new nation called New Acadia about the size of Denmark based on the catholic distribiutist subsidiarity ideal.
each level of confederation would have different functions based on the predistribution of economic rent from the natural and social commons.
so for instance bio-regions generally follow watersheds...
Published: April 12, 2006 9:58 PM
Fred Mann
"the citizens of Government B are made up of Government A1, A2, A3 & A4"
This is an attempt to avoid the contradiction by suggesting that there is only one government. But then you go on to describe a government whose jurisdiction encompasses a land mass roughly equal to the size of Denmark, so you're also apparently not talking about one world government. So the contradition still applies!! The citizens of New Acadia (I'll call it Government A) will be harming the citizens of all other governments (Governments B,C,D,E ...) in exactly the same way as described multiple times above.
I also find it curious that you had no idea how to solve this problem this afternoon, but now you have a fully-developed system and even have a name for your state. To recap:
Fred Mann writes:
"How does a government come to have exclusive rights to offer its "services" over a particular TITLE GRANTING AUTHORITY AREA? i.e. Why/how is it that Government A can can exclude Government B from operating in its territory?"
BillG responds:
dunno...not really a concern of mine.
Very interesting...
Published: April 12, 2006 10:54 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Fred Mann wrote:
"I also find it curious that you had no idea how to solve this problem this afternoon, but now you have a fully-developed system and even have a name for your state."
BillG responds:
sorry...wasn't really sure what you were asking about early as you had to state it a number of different ways.
Published: April 13, 2006 4:41 AM
lorenzo sleakes
Fred Mann wrote: "Have you never driven on a private road?"
You cant get from New York to California on a private road. I can move up and down my driveway all day long and a prisoner can pace in his jail cell. Both have limited and restricted freedom of movement. The public space gives everyone equal freedom of movement but limits our freedom to do anything else - like build a house.
Peter wrote: "Illogical -- if the first statement is true, the "everyone else who loses some freedom to access that land" loses precisely nothing: they can't do anything if they have no private landholding, right?"
On private land one person has maximum freedom - can build a house. But everyone else has zero freedom on that private space. If you have built your house on the ocean with private beach than I have not only lost my freedom to build a house in your great location but I've also lost my freedom to even use your beach.
Published: April 13, 2006 8:59 AM
Yancey Ward
BillG,
Good luck with your system.
Any system in which people can be unwillingly uprooted by others is going to result in lots of unhappy people.
And I would point out that Fred Mann is correct. Without universal and consistent application of your principle to the entire surface of the planet and all of its people, it will replace individual over individual "violations" of labor product with group over group "violations"; or no different than today in which the residents of Illinois "violate" the rights of Bangladeshis by virtue of the facts of geography and history.
Published: April 13, 2006 9:00 AM
BillG (not Gates)
Yancey Ward wrote:
"Any system in which people can be unwillingly uprooted by others is going to result in lots of unhappy people."
BillG responds:
are there a lot of unhappy people in Hong Kong where no one owns there own land yet they annually rate highest on the WSJ's economic freedom index?
I'll make a deal with you Yancey...
landowners don't have to share the economic rent directly and equally with their neighbors to insure the sanctity of labor-based property rights for those being excluded if tenants don't have to pay the economic rent portion of their lease payments and not have the state come throw them out on the street.
deal?
Published: April 13, 2006 10:25 AM
Yancey Ward
BillG,
As for those in Hong Kong, I don't know how happy they are or are not, but is their system the same as the one you propose?
As for your deal, I have a question. How does one determine where housing rent and land rent begin and end?
Published: April 13, 2006 10:33 AM
BillG (not Gates)
Yancey Ward wrote:
"is their system the same as the one you propose?"
BillG responds:
similar in that the economic rent is used for public revenue as the state owns the land and just leases it based on market demand.
different in that the economic rent, rather than going to the state is paid directly and equally to your neighbors and they to you (in common) while individuals hold the bundled rights of land ownership (use, possession, use, transferability) in private hands.
Yancy wrote:
"How does one determine where housing rent and land rent begin and end?"
BillG responds:
the same way an assessment is made of the market value of buildings and lands.
Published: April 13, 2006 11:00 AM
Yancey Ward
Bill G,
So the housing rent rate will be set by the government as well?
Published: April 13, 2006 11:32 AM
BillG (not Gates)
Yancy Ward wrote:
"So the housing rent rate will be set by the government as well?"
BillG responds:
a market assessment is made of the land and building values...the ratio is then applied to the lease payment.
Published: April 13, 2006 11:51 AM
Yancey Ward
BillG,
So, if I find a tenant who will pay twice as much rent for my housing as the previous tenant, then my land property tax goes up as well?
Published: April 13, 2006 12:25 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Yancey Ward wrote:
"if I find a tenant who will pay twice as much rent for my housing as the previous tenant, then my land property tax goes up as well?"
BillG responds:
this really doesn't have anything to do with the building value to land value ratio but...presumably if your location commands a higher lease payment from a tenant that will be reflected in the market value assessment - no?
by the way - rather than allow you to continue asking all of the questions and thus control the direction of the dialogue...do we have a deal yet?
Published: April 13, 2006 1:07 PM
Yancey Ward
Bill G,
The rental value has much to do with the building's value. Given two identical buildings on identical land, but one comes with a tenant with a lease at twice the rent, then that building will command a higher market value since its return is higher. For the ratio to remain the same, the land this building sits on will have to be assessed higher, as you seemed to agree. However, how has the land contributed to my having this higher paying tenant? Why shouldn't the land rent of the two properties be the same?
Published: April 13, 2006 1:54 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Yancy Ward wrote:
"Given two identical buildings on identical land, but one comes with a tenant with a lease at twice the rent, then that building will command a higher market value since its return is higher."
BillG responds:
could you please describe specifically how two "identical buildings" in "identical locations" can not have identical rental values?
I believe you are describing the personal utility value of that individual's preference for the apartment in question but certainly not the market value.
the market, the public and the community are all the same thing..we just call it the market when it expresses itself economically, the public when it expresses itself politically, and the community (or society) when it expresses itself socially but in all cases, it is the aggregate effect of individual actions.
so while each individual action is subjective and unpredictable, the aggregate effects are easily measured.
Published: April 13, 2006 2:49 PM
Fred Mann
Lorenzo,
I highly recommend that you read "Freemarket Transportation: Denationalizing The Roads" (Here is a link to the PDF: http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf )
The government is not magic. Public roads are only constructed by confiscation of property. Homes are regularly taken for less than market value, and neighboring land is devalued without just compensation. Also consider that the government has not made any significant innovations in roads or road safety in 50 years or more! Millions and millions of deaths without an end in sight. How do you think the free market would handle that? Imagine if you could sue the road owner for death or injury caused by the roads (or pollution , for that matter). You'd see wonderful innovations almost overnight.
Bill G,
As your new best friend, I can only recommend that you give up on New Acadia now and put your time to better use. I have clearly exposed just one of the many inconsistencies in your theory. Your system will bring about war and tyranny if implemented on a large scale.
Published: April 13, 2006 2:56 PM
Yancey Ward
BillG,
Why not just answer the question: is the land rent the same on the two properties?
Published: April 13, 2006 3:13 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Yancey Ward wrote:
"Why not just answer the question: is the land rent the same on the two properties?"
BillG responds:
hmmm...why are you still asking the questions?
as I explained economic rent is only concerned with market value not personal utility value...so they would be the same.
the hypothetical you gave is regarding personal utility value.
Published: April 13, 2006 4:41 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Fred Mann wrote:
"Your system will bring about war and tyranny if implemented on a large scale."
BillG responds:
you mean as opposed to our current land tenure system that you are defending?
in the system that I advocate no matter where anyone else chooses to locate - no one would be economically harmed.
hmmm...a prescription for war and tyranny or peace and prosperity?
Published: April 13, 2006 4:47 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Now a question for you Yancey...
previously you had suggested that you would have to turn over some products of labor to pay the economic rent and I replied:
1. the landowner doesn't labor to produce the land itself
2. the landowner doesn't labor to produce the unimproved land value (economic rent)
3. in a pure economic rent sharing scenario there would be no purchase price to land.
so once again I ask - can you tell me exactly where the labor based property rights of the landowner are being violated?
Published: April 13, 2006 4:54 PM
Fred Mann
"in the system that I advocate no matter where anyone else chooses to locate - no one would be economically harmed."
... except those in neighboring governments/states who do not get a share of the "economic rent".
"you mean as opposed to our current land tenure system that you are defending?"
Where did I ever defend the current system? Never did. Never will.
Published: April 13, 2006 5:41 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Fred Mann:
"except those in neighboring governments/states who do not get a share of the "economic rent""
BillG responds:
they can freely go to that or any other area...and it matters not a whit of where anyone else locates - they will not be economically harmed if the economic rent is shared.
Published: April 13, 2006 6:12 PM
lorenzo sleakes
Some thoughts in defense of George:
Even in a minimal state some source of revenue is needed. Given that some kind of tax is necessary isn’t a tax that does not punish human action superior?
If two houses are getting radically different rents in the same location then it can only be because one house is superior. In most current property tax assessments the better house will be taxed higher. This is exactly what doesn’t happen with the land value tax.
How would local governments set the tax? How do local governments do it today? They are forced to compete in a market against other governments to attract people and businesses that will be most attracted like all customers by getting the best services for the lowest cost.
I think the strongest argument George against are that:
1.Some people will not be able to pay the tax and will be forced to sell their homes making this kind of tax very unpopular. It is true that a tax that forces people out of their homes will be painful for some. Note: this is true of all property tax today – not just land value tax. But it can only happen because other people can pay the higher tax and will be able to afford that location. In a zero sum gain for each loser there is also a winner. In the alternative sales or income tax setting for example a person with five dollars in pocket will not be able to afford a five dollar item because they wont be able to pay the one extra dollar in sales tax. As a result the transaction will never occur in the first place. The economic loss of the transaction that never happens (but would have) is never mourned like somebody having to give something up.
2.Georgists don’t really solve their own problem because in situations like Disney World moving into a location will in fact be the cause of land value increasing and then Disney is punished for improving the land when their land value tax increases. This certainly goes against the goal of Georgism to not punish improvements. The solution is the same thing that protects any business making a large capital investment to establish a location while paying rent to a landlord. They would have to protect the capital investment with a long term lease or the equivalent – some kind of contractual rent stabilization.
Published: April 14, 2006 7:58 AM
Yancey Ward
BillG,
So, let us see if I understand your system and then I will answer your question:
People bid for temporary title to land with the local governing authority. The monetary value of these bids becomes the economic rent of the land. Previous tenants, who are outbid, must either sell the improvements they have made to the land or completely dismantle and remove them to another location for which they can afford the economic rent. When two businesses are located on identical land in a location, the land rent is the same on both lots, as you agreed to previously, and if a buyer steps forward and offers to buy one of the businesses and land title for $5 million dollars, and another buyer steps forward to buy the other for $1 million dollars, the land rent has not changed on either property. Also, if someone outbids me for land title, he/she cannot hold over my head the threat of demolishing my improvements if I am unable to remove them (how do you move the Empire State building, for example), so that I am forced to sell at a distressed price.
If this all holds, then I would have to agree that this protects labor based property more strongly than the present system.
I, more or less, have the same observations about such a system as outlined by Lorenzo Sleakes above. In addition, such a system is very open to abuse and corruption, but that is no different than what we have today.
Published: April 14, 2006 9:06 AM
BillG (not Gates)
Lorenzo wrote:
"Some thoughts in defense of George"
BillG responds:
nice of you to take up the cause!
Lorenzo wrote:
"Even in a minimal state some source of revenue is needed. Given that some kind of tax is necessary isn’t a tax that does not punish human action superior?"
BillG responds:
this is the utilitarian argument...
I am arguing THE fundamental principle that you can't have the absolute right of self-ownership (plus the resulting fruits of labor) AND the absolute right to land ownership AT THE SAME TIME.
it is logically impossible!
inorder to exist I must occupy space therefore occupying space is not a "necessity" but rather the sine qua non of human existence.
if all locations are legally occupied I literally have no place that I can stand to excercise my right of self-ownership (meaning not requiring to be bought or gifted) without sacrificing the fruits of my labor.
so my argument is based on simple justice via equal liberty...
Lorenzo wrote:
"How do local governments do it [determine taxes] today?"
BillG responds:
you make an assessment of market values (not personal utility) based on as many data points as possible.
Lorenzo wrote:
"Some people will not be able to pay the tax and will be forced to sell their homes making this kind of tax very unpopular"
BillG responds:
today tenants are thrown out of their homes all the time by the state...
under extenuating circumstances a simple lien to be paid at title transfer will suffice.
Lorenzo wote:
"Georgists don’t really solve their own problem because in situations like Disney World moving into a location will in fact be the cause of land value increasing and then Disney is punished for improving the land when their land value tax increases"
BillG responds:
the land value of Disney's neighbors will go up not Disney...as the land values increase around Disney those landowners will then optimize the use of their location which will then increase Disney's land values...
economic rent is the UNimproved land value not improved land value.
Published: April 14, 2006 10:03 AM
BillG (not Gates)
Yancey Ward wrote:
"let us see if I understand your system and then I will answer your question"
BillG responds:
as you describe it you understand it well enough except for the fact that when you use the term "distressed price" you are once again confusing personal utility value versus market value.
one is subjective while the other is objective.
ok, I am now waiting for you to answer my question.
where exactly are the fruits of labor denied in the system I advocate?
Published: April 14, 2006 10:12 AM
lorenzo sleakes
I am arguing THE fundamental principle that you can't have the absolute right of self-ownership (plus the resulting fruits of labor) AND the absolute right to land ownership AT THE SAME TIME.
it is logically impossible!
So given that you cant have both at the same time which should takes precedence??
Self Ownership must takes precedence because it is an inalienable natural right and the foundation for other property alienable property rights.
Published: April 14, 2006 10:21 AM
BillG (not Gates)
Lorenzo wrote:
"So given that you cant have both at the same time which should takes precedence??
Self Ownership must takes precedence because it is an inalienable natural right and the foundation for other property alienable property rights."
BillG responds:
bingo!
inorder to have ABSOLUTE rights to labor as the natural extension to self-ownership we MUST make private property to land ownership CONDITIONAL.
Locke's proviso (condition) is the standard because beyond it where there is not "enough and as good left in common for others" locations have economic rent attach which becomes a legal and monetary obligation on those being excluded from that location denying their LABOR-based property rights.
now you understand the Georgist claim.
simple justice via equal liberty, special privileges for no one!
Published: April 14, 2006 10:35 AM
Yancey Ward
BillG,
I brought up the distressed price scenario because such activity can be used to deny me the fruits of my labor.
For example, I covet a building and location owned and leased by someone else. When the lease on the land comes up for renewal, I outbid the current tenant, and threaten to demolish his building if he doesn't sell it to me as well. This would seem to be a potential violation of the labor product of this tenant.
I will grant, that if done perfectly, there are no violations of labor product in your system as long as all proceeds from the property tax are returned on an equal basis to the citizens.
Published: April 14, 2006 10:48 AM
BillG (not Gates)
Yancey Ward wrote:
"I covet a building and location owned and leased by someone else. When the lease on the land comes up for renewal, I outbid the current tenant, and threaten to demolish his building if he doesn't sell it to me as well. This would seem to be a potential violation of the labor product of this tenant"
BillG responds:
you buy the building and agree to pay the economic rent in a competitive bid against others...the previous owner has the ability to disassemble or move the building prior to the sale.
Yancey Ward wrote:
"there are no violations of labor product in your system as long as all proceeds from the property tax are returned on an equal basis to the citizens"
BillG responds:
you are one honest man Mr. Ward to make a statement like that on the Mises blog!
Published: April 14, 2006 5:14 PM
Fred Mann
Bill G,
Let's give this one more shot, but from a different angle.
You state above, "the land starts out owned in common."
First question: What land?
You MUST either be talking about ALL land on Earth, or a particular parcel of land. There are no other options.
Second question: Owned in common by whom?
You MUST either be talking about ALL people on the Earth, or a particular group of people. There are no other options.
So ...
If you are talking about ALL land and ALL people on Earth, the only way to implement your plan would be to establish a World Government.
If you are talking about a particular group of people and a particular plot of land, then you are violating your stated principles! This MUST be the case, because if the economic rent is not shared worldwide, then there must exist a group which is not allowed to share in the economic rent of that land. And when one group excludes another group from sharing in the economic rent, this group is doing the EXACT same thing that you objected to above. They are harming every member of the excluded group, because EVERY MEMBER OF THE EXCLUDED GROUP IS DENIED A SHARE OF THE ECONOMIC RENT OF THAT LAND!!!
Published: April 15, 2006 1:58 AM
Peter
And how did the land come to be owned in common? When the first humans wandered out of Africa, did they already have a claim on ownership (in common with those who stayed, of course), on all the land in America? Australia? Pitcairn Island? Even though nobody even knew of the existence of those places? If so, how come? If not, how did such a claim arise later? It stands to reason that if nobody knew of those places, then nobody could possibly be hurt in any way whatsoever by someone else discovering and using and "enclosing" those places, even if no such ownership "right" for the people still in Africa (etc.) was ever conjured up in the future.
Published: April 15, 2006 3:18 AM
BillG (not Gates)
Fred Mann wrote:
"You MUST either be talking about ALL land on Earth, or a particular parcel of land. There are no other options."
BillG responds:
actually everything in the material universe that precedes human labor...
Fred Mann wrote:
"You MUST either be talking about ALL people on the Earth, or a particular group of people. There are no other options."
BillG responds:
yes - all people on the earth
Fred Mann wrote:
"If you are talking about ALL land and ALL people on Earth, the only way to implement your plan would be to establish a World Government."
BillG responds:
the enclosure of a particular location creates a legal and monetary obligation on those you are excluding who are interested in locating nearby.
if I put a new addition on my house I directly impact my neighbors land values and maybe only slightly impact other community members across town.
but across the world in Australia?
Published: April 15, 2006 7:33 AM
BillG (not Gates)
Peter wrote:
"how did the land come to be owned in common? When the first humans wandered out of Africa, did they already have a claim on ownership (in common with those who stayed, of course), on all the land in America?"
BillG responds:
property rights are based on labor as the natural extension of self-ownership.
whomever produced the lands in question are the rightful owners.
otherwise we all have an inalienable, INDIVIDUAL equal access opportunity right so long as our access/use does not infringe upon anyone else's equal claim.
Peter wrote:
"It stands to reason that if nobody knew of those places, then nobody could possibly be hurt in any way whatsoever by someone else discovering and using and "enclosing" those places"
BillG responds:
correct - up to the sustainable yield of occupancy (Locke's proviso - enough and as good left in common for others) because beyond the enclosure creates a legal and monetary obligation on those being excluded which can only be satisfied by violating their absolute right to the fruits of their labor and hence self-ownership.
Published: April 15, 2006 7:41 AM
Fred Mann
BillG,
Let's say I live just outside the boundaries of Government A. The citizens of Government A share the economic rent among themselves, but not with me, even though I may be just a mile, or a few feet outside their border. Therefore Government A harms me by excluding me from sharing in the economic rent.
Published: April 15, 2006 2:28 PM
BillG (not Gates)
Fred Mann wrote:
"Therefore Government A harms me by excluding me from sharing in the economic rent."
BillG responds:
yes, but you are sharing in the economic rent of Governemnt B who is not sharing with those over the border of Government A.
if you think it is such a good deal to be in Government A's area then simply sell and move.
all political boundaries are arbitrary - being a bio-regionalist myself I would much prefer that they be drawn according to physical atributes of the natural landscpe like watersheds...
Published: April 15, 2006 3:52 PM