Saurabh

Guys, I am currently reading Proudhon, Locke and Spencer on the issue of property rights, and will post my detailed response later. Just wanted to chip in right now as Zip raised again the basic question (above). Now, I do believe in property rights. But, I also believe that a man does not have the right to claim property over land. Because, a man can only own something that he either creates by his own effort, or exchanges (by offering in return a product of his effort to the creator). Man's ownership over land follows none of the above two conditions. Now, I know that you believe that land property rights can also arise just by first use or appropriation. But, I do not see any philosophical justification for that. If you grant property rights under this way, you preclude future claimants from getting a chance to compete for same land. My propositions is to offer 'rights of usage' over land, instead of 'rights of ownership'. This way a pioneer can use the land and keep full value. But, if there arise multiple bidders for that land, then they have a fair chance of getting the usage rights - by bidding higher than the pioneer. A more structured response will follow...

Randroid, Let me clarify. Original-state Land is supplied at zero cost (by nature). But Gold is not. It is supplied by a producer after incurring the cost of extraction, etc. Both Land and Gold can, however, have a positive price. And this depends upon on where Demand and supply equate. Zip, I am not making a sweeping statement on prop rights, across different types of properties. And I am with you on your generic view on property rights - that these are inviolate human rights. However, the statement that prop rights are inviolate human rights is not an axiom. It is derived from a basic right of a human being to his life. Now, I am asserting that pvt property rights on a natural resource such as land, actually violate this right to life for other productive people who do not own land, and can't even bid for it by offering the scarcity rent as payment. This is my definitive position. I realize I need to support my position thoroughly - and I will do so in my subsequent posts. Softwarenerd, I agree with you here. Also, I will support my claim - that in a free-market pvt prop right on land will lead to parasitic-landlords - in my subsequent posts.

Jake and CWEarl, Thanks for your remarks. There are two takeaways for me: 1) Some reality shows can be proper philosophically - if they are not scripted, and if they show a contest where the rules of the game are defined. 2) Aesthetics is also a consideration, if one views these shows as art CWEarl, I would agree with you, if I would just be asking for what Objectivism believes in. Actually, my query is what Objectivism believes in and why. Though, I agree, I did not state the why in my OP. But, as I understand now, the reason for 1 (above) to be true is that such reality shows are actually equivalent to a sport.

Zip, Let us agree on the rules of the game, before we continue further on the debate. I can think of three basic rules: 1) The intention for debate is not to prove a point, but to reach a logical conslusion - through mutual intellectual challenge. 2) The only arbiter is logic 3) There needs to be best intellectual effort from both sides to understand each other's position I am not at all implying that anyone is violating any of these rules. I just want to say is that at this point, you need to judge if I am violating any of these rules. If yes (e.g. if you think I am no being intellectualy honest), then you must not deal with me. Your code of morality will imply that. Right? I will follow the same rule too. And I am continuing this debate becuase I do sense seriousness, honesty and lot of effort in yours and others' responses. Now, I agree that I introduced the concept of Zero price. But I am not implying that Land should come at zero price. I re-state my point: 'There is some money that needs to be paid for the use of land just because of the fact that demand (at zero price) for land exceeds its supply'. Let me know if you want me to elaborate more. I agree with the conditional statement. But the debate is about the condition (If I own the land...). Right? Zip and softwarenerd, Thanks for the above remarks, as I realize the mistake I was making. From now on, I will only focus on the Fundamental issue, and not on what is practically happening. I rephrase my assertion as follows: Pvt property in Land leads to a contradiction of human rights, even when applied in a free market. To debate the above assertion, I will refrain from using practical examples, as these examples are not neccesarily a result of free market. Hope you guys agree with this approach. So, you make two points here: 1) In a free market, there would be no one in my category of Landlords (let us call them parasite-landlords) 2) In a free market, if productive people were smarter, they would be landlords (productive-landlords). Now, before I give you my reaction on point 1, would you want to tell me how do you think this would not happen in free market? On 2, again please tell me how do you see this happening in a free market. My position here is that market for land is Oligopsonistic, so productive people will have to pay a very high price for that land. This will prevent lot of such people from becoming landlords.

Hi all, AR says that art is selective re-creation of reality. In her book 'The Romantic Manifesto', she says that art should not show the non-essential aspects of reality (e.g. a rotten apple), but it should depict what is possible (e.g. a red ripe apple). My question is, should an Objectivism follower like the concept of Reality TV or not? More important question to me is not: whether Reality TV has a possibility of being bad. The question I am interested in is: if Reality TV as a concept has any possibiity of being good - from a philosophical standpoint. I am also not concerned if Reality TV does not classify as art. Which is why I am looking for a philoophical appraisal - and not as esthetic one. My own take is: Reality TV can be a philosophically good concept if implemented by a program that shows how, in reality, a good human being wins (e.g. on a sanitized version of a show like Big Brother). In other words, it becomes equivalent to a sport, based on some rules of game. Plz let me know your reactions/thoughts. Thx!

Zip, Your point above does not conflict mine. People create value of land - by discovering its properties and applying labor. This generates a demand for land. Pretty soon there is more demand for land than the supply. So scarcity arises. So I see my point as an extension of your point. The right question to debate on is: who should get this value? There are 3 parties involved: Productive people who would use the land and create this value, non-productive people, and landlords who would not use the land but would extract a major part of the value created. My debate is about taking this value away from landlords, and giving it to productive people. I agree with you that there in no scarcity in any fundamental sense. But that is not what I am debating. I am debating a practical issue - that there is huge concentration of land in few hands. Hence, there is scarcity. May be this does not apply to US and Canada. But it is very true for India. Again, I am not suggesting that land come at zero price. How did you get this impression?

Let us first agree on what Demand and Supply are. These two concepts are valid even if there is not a market place. Because demand stems from consumer preferences and his budget; and supply from a producer's production function and business motives. A market place matches demand with supply by adjusting the price. What do you think gives rise to this price (for land)? Is it not scarcity? And I am right now just giving a name to this price. I am not implying anything about it (in my argument B ). It appears to me that you guys are still on the surface. I am not anymore getting the kind of challenge I wanted. But I will wait for a few more days.

Randroid, I have actually offered an explanation. All I said was that I did not want to make the explanation more basic. Please go over my explanation in my earlier post, and then tell me where you disagree. Jake, I don't understand your comment. Are Demand and Supply false concepts? Zip, My argument is not that land doesn't exist at "zero price" then it is scarce. My argument is: because land is scarce (Demand > Supply), so it does not have a zero price (which is called scarcity rent). Moreover, water analogy is not correct because the water coming out of a tap is not original-state. It has been transported, after incurring some cost. Please show me how? Are demand and supply socialist concepts? Again, my argument B is as follows: B1) Demand for free land exeeds its supply. B2) Hence, land market clears at a positive price. B3) I am calling this price as scarcity rent (SR). I am actually perplexed why you guys are not being able to challenge me on this very statement. Right now you guys are using unneccasry adjectives and generic statements (socialist theory, false concepts,etc). Actually, let me now show you how I expect my argument to be challenged (Illustrative only): Saurabh, I do not agree with B1. Because, land is not scarce. Because, If I demand a land today, I can get it... OR Saurabh, I do not agree with B2, because using an analogy, water's demand also exceeds supply, but its market clears at zero price...

Hi, Below is my overall refined position on the issue: A) Nature provides us land which has the property of being fertile even without human action B ) This land generates scarcity rent (SR) i.e. money that needs to be paid solely becuase of the land being inelastic in supply C) This SR arises due to the scarcity created by the action of productive people D) Now, anything growing on this land when sold in market, fetches a price which is a sum of both this SR and the value-add by humans E) This SR that currently goes to the landlord, needs to be distributed among the set of productive people that created that scarcity. It does not belong solely to the landlord. F) Any concern around the implementation of the above proposal, is secondary. First one needs to agree on the morality of the above proposal. One cannot reject the morality of an idea by saying it is impractical. One can only reject the operationalization of the idea. Morevoer, my core belief is that operationalization should be possible (if not by us, then by someone more qualified than us), though I would not like to invest my time there right now. Also, one cannot reject the morality of the idea by citing bad consequences that do not 'necessarily' follow from the idea (e.g saying that this idea will give more power to the govt. and govt. is 'often' corrupt). Below, I give me defense for B. I propose that we only discuss B first, as B is the core assumption. To keep the debate focussed on the most basic issue, I will not respond to any objection raised on C-F, until B is resolved. Now, B is true simple becuase demand for land (at zero price) is greater than supply. To clear the market, price will have to greater than zero. If the land had been there in abundance, demand and supply would have matched at zero price. But land is not abundant, so it generates scarcity rent. Now, to me the explanation above is based on an irreducable primary - that SR arises because demand exceeds supply of land. I can't break it down any further (except telling you why demand exceeds supply). So please help me understand why you do not agree.

Freestyle, Brian0918 and Jake, Your responses make a lot of sense to me. The question that now nags me is what should be an appropriate solution in this situation (instead of forcing the banks to split)? I know Brain0918 mentioned about customer demanding more transparency and possibiity of making the system more efficient; but can we make this solutions more concrete? I wonder if AR center (or any other Objectivist organization) have taken any position on this.

Randroid, Thanks for this suggestion. I will get back with a detailed post - after incorporating all that I have learnt so far. Cheers

Randroid, I think there are two parts to a debate - clarifying your position, and supporting it. I was doing the first in my post. I did that since you seem to have mis-understood my position. On the second, we are still engaged on two issues: 1) My question to you: What makes 1-4 earn the land? You have not yet provided me a complete answer. Per your answer, they made the land usable, but not useful. Land was fertile already. They may have cleared the field, weeds, etc. And they can claim this value add - but not own the entire land. 2) Your question to me: What makes land common property? My answer to this proceeds from my objection to 1-4 earning that property. I can take on the burden of proof, but it will be great if you can prove 1. This is a fact. And I can't disagree with it. Would you want to tell me what are you implying here?

Freestyle, Let me clarify. Every IV needs not to be distributed. Only when this IV has been converted into $ as scarcity rent, should the IV be re-distributed. If you re-read my posts, you will notice that I already have this condition - of IV going into Price - for re-distribution of IV. Now, we need to differentiate between IV of scarce vs non-rescarce natural resources. If someone exploits the natural properties of sound to create music, then this IV does not lead to scarcity rents - as everyone can use this discovery and make music. In fact, now, you owe money to the pioneer for using his discovery. And you can build on that discovery. However, the IV for land leads to scarcity rents. Right now, this rent is mal-distributed with landlords. I am for re-distributing this rent, as the landlords did not earn it. I have modified my position that this re-distribution should be towards people who would use the scarce resource given a chance, and not towards free-riders. How to do this practically, is not the most pressing question for me right now (but I will address this later on). Randriod, This looks a bit exaggerated. I agree that the land was unused; but was it really useless? Softwarenerd, I don't understand you. Your post has lot of generic statements - but how are you claiming that an Oligopsony will not lead to wages dropping below MPL? Can you provide a concrete example?

I really like your crisp answer. Thanks. Would you say that regulation is force (always)?

Hi, I would like to propose a discussion on an issue which is very relevant in today's economic context: Is there a 'rational' case for splitting the banks by business activity (e.g. Retail banking, Corporate Banking, etc)? A recent article in FT got me thinking about this. I wonder how can we look at this problem using the principles of 'Objectivism'. - On one hand there is the issue of giving the banks the freedom to decide how they wish to organize. - On the other side there is the issue of preventing the bank failures from disrupting the economy. Please let me know if anyone is interested in discussing this topic. Thanks! The link to the article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a11e34ac-c3fc-11...144feab49a.html

Thanks Freestyle. I still would like to add that I also see Jake's point - there may be more than two positions to explore in a debate. I know that this is not possible fundamentally - but may be the two debating parties falsely believe that their positions are mutually exclusive and contradictory. What do others think?

I am not very clear on your argument - when did I claim that intrinsic value needs to distributed? From what I can understand about your argument, I believe you are missing a crucial link (in italics below): Land has intrinsic value. This value enters into the price (of anything that is produce using land) and gets paid as a $ to someone. This $ is not earned by that person - as it arose due to scarcity.

Guys, I think the best position to take on this would be: AR was a genuis indeed. Now, it would make sense to stand (not sit) on her shoulders and take 'Objectivism' forward. Do you guys agree?

In this situation B' can offer the full property to A', and ask A' to pay for only the value added by B'. It would be a win-win. If you want to take this further, I can play B' and you play A', and see how we can resolve the issue.

Zip, I did not understand you. Can you please bear with me and clarify?

Freestyle, To be honest I have not thought about Gold yet. This issue of gold is different than the issue of land, as land is not an exhaustible resource. Hence, I first want to problem-solve for land. However, below I apply your concern in the context of land. You are not owed any fortune for any discovery. In fact, you should pay some amount to the discoverers (if IPRs are properly established). I do not understand how you made the above conlcusion. All you have a claim on is an opportunity to bid for the right to use the land and extract all the value that you generate. In the current state of the world, you do not have that right (I can elaborate if needed). P.S. If you or others truely believe that I am taking the debate into circles, than you may want to excercise your right to not participate. I am participating as I am still gaining from it. Also, I believe that I am taking the debate very seriously, and continuously engaging (although I may have forgotten responding to some as I am engaging with mutiple people). If you read one of my earlier posts to Randroid, you would see that I have summarized the basic issues from both sides and have provided my responses. I have avoided a few issues deliberately - but that is for prioritizing the issues and focussing on the most basic one.

This is only true for perfect competition. In our example, 1-4 are the only buyers of labor - so the market is an oligopsony. You may want to consider going a level deeper.

Randroid, I want us to focus on the basic issues. My issue with your position is: What made 1-4 earn the land? Please let me know your response on this. Your issue with my position is: Why should there be common ownership of all land? My response to your issue is below: I have modified my position slightly - There should be common ownership only for productive people (who would use the land given a chance). I modified my position becuase I agree that rents should not be given to people who have no intention/capability to use it. Thanks to you guys! Now, I take this (modified) position because I am still not convinced what made 1-4 get ownership of that land. They were first-movers, i agree. But, they did not discover the fertile properties of land. These were discovered by the Pioneer who is long since dead, and so are his heirs (I am adding this fact to bring our setting closer to reality. Let me know if you have any issues here). Now, by what right can 1-4 claim the land? They can only claim the produce. So, in essence I am for individual rights. But, I want to differentiate between what is man-made versus what is nature-provided. I believe that this distinction needs to be made clear today.

Zip, We are using the example approach to argue the point. Can you stick to the example and respond to my concerns raised in that setting, and also raise your concerns? The argument will become more concrete that way. Thx!

Dear Jake, I understand your reaction now. Actually, I was trying to play devil's advocate. My belief is that if one stands for something, one must rely on his independent judgement. And one must develop that by arguing from both sides equaly fervently - and then reaching a conclusion. I admire AR so much that I don't want her to become my crutch.