Topic: Georgism/Geoism and the Land Value Tax - page 3. (Read 11875 times)

No, by digging the mine, you alter the land. You thereby gain ownership of the land. The ore, both in the vein and dug up, is part of that land

Care to explain how the first person gets most of the reward? Even if he rents it, He won't be able to charge more than the renter is willing to pay, and if the area is rich in ore, prospective renters may value that already dug hole less than the money he's charging for it, and go stake their own claim.

So drawing a line on a map is less arbitrary? hmm, no. And your system has the same problem. How much land do you charge him for, if he breaks a trail trough the woods? All the woods he's thus altered? (ask FirstAscent exactly how) Just the trail? some area (line of sight?) around the trail?

You're aware that most land in the US was homesteaded? And I've explained a transition like this before. Gov't land is up for grabs, with the current users of it getting first "dibs" (the President would get some sweet digs), Private land, unless clearly stolen is assumed to be legitimately gained. Do some people get screwed? Maybe. But a lot fewer than the current system, and fewer than yours, too.

Well, I never had my neighbor's yard, but I did legitimately gain my house. I do have it. Their claim conflicts with mine. That's why I care.

I already addressed size in the original post.

If homesteading just allowed you to claim the product of your labor, you would have a point.  But it does so much more than that.  It gives you the product of all future labor done on that site, and it allows you to leech off of the production of the surrounding community.  According to that principle, building a mine should give you the right to claim only the ore you dig up, and not the ore that's still in the vein.  Yet, taking the vein as private property allows you to do both.

As I pointed out in the last thread, the first person could "homestead" one year, and then the next person to arrive could spend the rest of their life doing the exact same work on the exact same land, and the first person would get most of the reward.  Why?  Just because he got there first?

And, there's no clear line regarding how much land a given act of homesteading entitles you to.  In the last thread you gave the example of breaking a trail to claim a section of wilderness.  How much wilderness does a trail entitle you to?  While it sounds nice on paper, I really think homesteading is too arbitrary to base a system of property rights on.

Besides, how would you even go from the current system, where property consists of lines on a map, to a homestead system?  A number of people own land without marking it, would that revert to the commons after the revolution?  A number of people own land that is marked or occupied, but did not earn it justly, what happens to them?

Also, why do you care how the government claims sovereignty over land?  In your words, you never had it, so it was not taken from you, so why worry about it?

Well, size, for one. For another, they have exerted actual effort on their part, through either directly homesteading, or by trading for the land. Governments, as I have said, typically just draw lines on maps.


That's where you're wrong. Homesteading the land changes it from something natural to something man-made. A product of a man's labor. And the product of a man's labor is his. He can sell it, he can keep it, he can pass it down to his heirs. Drawing a line on a map alters the map, not the land.

And private landowners are different in this regard, how?

The US government has a house on the land.  It's white.  Also scores of offices, schools, military bases, prisons, hospitals, and more scattered throughout the country.

You bought your house with the full understanding that it was part of a country and subject to the laws of its government.  In effect, what you bought was permission to occupy land owned by the government.  It's like buying an apartment and complaining that the someone else still owns the building.  You "never had" sovereignty over the land you call your own, and since you never had it, then according to your logic you can't complain about the government denying you sovereignty.

Neither one of them has a better claim, they're both arbitrary.

But I can't, you see.... Countries have this imaginary line on the ground they call a border, and while they usually let you cross out fine, coming in (and you can't leave one without entering another) is a different matter entirely.

On the contrary, they claim the very land that I have bought, fair and square, and claim that since they drew some lines on a map, I owe them tax. Who has a better claim on a piece of land, the man with a felt-tipped marker and a map, or the man with a house on it?

In that case, you must feel extremely free because technically you can leave your country whenever you want.  Governments don't control you, they just control land you never had to begin with.

The parts you cut out answer that question.

Do the answers to these questions vary depending on whether or not we're in a geoist system?

I'm sorry, I really can't follow your point.  The market value of a drink of water is immeasurably small, especially without the labor and capital needed to transport it to a populated area.  The whole point of the tax is that you are depriving others of the opportunity to use those resources productively.  If nobody else is willing to bid on that drink of water, then the value to the community is zero.  So, no, a drink of water would not be taxed, and as I said there isn't a clear line between what would and wouldn't be taxed.  So what?

I have considered whether or not these arguments apply to bitcoin, and I have concluded they do not.  Bitcoin is a currency.  It's value is entirely relative.  Even if I hoarded 99% of the bitcoin, people could still make do with trading the other 1% just fine.

George said that interest on capital stems from it being part of the same system of exchange as productive capital that grows in value over time.  I think the same applies to currencies.  Bitcoin grows in value because the bitcoin economy grows.  When I did the labor to earn the BTC in the first place, by delaying consumption I allowed the products of my labor to be invested productively, and that's reflected in the deflation of my BTC.  BTC might be stolen, but at least it's a one-time thing.  I won't have to pay rent to the thief every year afterwards.

Gold also gains some of its value as a currency, and as long as the land that produces gold is taxed, then compensation has already been made.

The price would be determined by what the market is willing to pay for it.  If it has some additional sentimental value specific to the current possessor, that will not be reflected in that market price. 

But you raise a good point though.  What about historic sites like cemeteries?  Even though it's harsh, I think it will ultimately have to fall to individuals to justify its existence by paying the value of whatever productive use that land would otherwise be put towards.  I'm tempted to say that there should be exceptions for things like that, but on reflection it's not necessary.  Making an exception for cemeteries is a reflection that they have intrinsic value to the community, and if they really do then the community can raise the funds to keep renting it.

If someone owns all Bitcoins, I can still barter my potatoes for your carrots and we can live a free and happy life.

If someone owns all land, they can make us pay rent or taxes, and we'd have nowhere to go to live an independent life. It's practically feudalism.

That is questionable. For most people today, money is required to meet basic needs. Anyways, I'm not sure why this matters.

Bitcoin and not even gold is required to satisfy basic needs in an economic circle. Land is.

What do you mean? What if you are a plantation owner in the post-slavery Carribbean and you have bought up all the water resources in order to reduplicate slavery through market arrangements. In the event of trespass and theft of stream use, the monetary losses are quite large. The plantation owner has loses his dictatorial control over the local population. Some small monetary compensation just won't do here. In any cases, the Negros are judgement proof. I suppose they can provide compensation via mandatory labor service though? LOL!

It is worth noting that land is not some sort of privileged asset. The argument applies to many other types of resources as well.

Suppose I horde gold or bitcoin and the value goes up due to technological progress that I did not actively help create. I could easily have acquired the bitcoin
through theft, though this doesn't really matter. Do I deserve to get these returns? (Deserve is a stupid, inappropriate word. What I really mean is: 'Is the average bitcoin user better off if coin owners capture all of rents associated with coin appreciation?')

Ideally, we would have some system of taxing some of these rents and redistributing the revenue to the people who actually cause technological progress. This could make the average bitcoin user better off.

I have suggested a voting scheme in the past. Acting much like shareholders, coin owners could vote for an individual who has helped support the technology and distribute some block reward to him or her.

Here is the thread if you are interested: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unregulated-corporation-cryptocurrency-75029

Is a drink from a stream a measurable loss? Is it permanent damage? A fire certainly is. And where you draw the line, of course, is up to the owner of the land.

No, I'm saying that owning natural resources does not steal them from those who never had them to begin with. You "homestead" the water when you drink it, and you homestead land when you plow it, or dig a mine into it, or build a fence around it. The difference is only of scale, and since you can hardly call drinking from a stream theft, neither can you call the claiming of land or other resources theft.

That depends on their agreement with the owner, doesn't it?  If they damage the land, by say starting a forest fire, he would have the right to ask for compensation, even if he didn't say "Don't burn down the forest" when he gave them permission to camp.  It's the same dilemma.  If you accept that he can sue them for damaging the land, where do you draw the line?

Let's not lose sight of what we're talking about.  Are you saying, that since it is impractical to collect the immeasurably tiny values of small amounts of abundant natural resources, we should therefore allow individuals to control all the vast quantities of the resources people need to live?

Camping on the land includes drinking from the stream. Unless you have a funny definition of "use the land?" (as in use the land for camping)

Typically monetarily. The amount would likely be small. Possibly even enough for the owner to forgive, assuming the offenders vacate immediately. ie: "Get of my land, you dirty hippies!"

What if they had permission to camp on the land, just not to drink from the stream?

Also, how exactly do you compensate someone for trespass?

No, trespass. What were they doing on the land that the stream passes through without permission?

Ok, so it's a blurry line.

The same dilemma exists in a private property system.  If some camper's drink from an owned stream, can the owner sue them for compensation?

So you're saying that there's no demand for water, and drinking it does not prevent others from doing so with that same water?

What I'm saying here is that your answer was not an answer. If people use it, and it is not infinite, it has market value. Even one sip of water from a stream has some market value. What I am looking for is a cut-off point of what amount of market value is considered "trivial," and what is considered "theft."