Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

"The rich got rich by putting their time and money into productive

Rate this topic


Jon Southall

Recommended Posts

Craig, you haven't read George's argument so with all due respect, you are in no position to explain it's strengths and weaknesses to me or anyone else.

You were the one who thought you had the right to charge someone £1,000 for sitting down merely because they are sitting 10ft away from you.

 

Theoretically, anyone using my land could be charged for it's use within reason but no one has to use my land if they cannot or will not pay me.  They can leave me alone and stay off my land.  That seems simple enough but you don't seem to get this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Theoretically, anyone using my land could be charged for it's use within reason but no one has to use my land if they cannot or will not pay me. They can leave me alone and stay off my land. That seems simple enough but you don't seem to get this."

The world being flat was "simple enough" to those who believed in the world being flat. From their perspective, if you push something to the edge of a table it obviously falls off, so how could the Earth be spherical and people remain attached to the surface at both the northern and southern hemisphere? It would seem absurd from their perspective.

Likewise you think it is simple enough that calling something yours is enough to make it yours, and as long as everyone else participates in this betrayal of what it is to earn something, you can simply force others to pay you so you can benefit from the wealth they have produced.

Let's reflect for a minute on the money speech:

"Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value... Money is made possible only by the men who produce...

“When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor–your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money"

When you rent or sell land (excluding all type 1 existents - see above), you are taking money but you have not *produced* anything in trade. You are not giving value for value, in the sense Rand meant it. They are simply paying you to move out of the way so they can use the land and benefit from that location (the value of which in no way resulted from your title).

I can't use the (type2) land your title says is yours without paying you first, as the police and legal system would prevent me forcibly if I tried. Paying you economic rent is as forced as paying tax is. I wouldn't refuse a new job for the reason it would require me to pay even more tax. My paying the tax after accepting the job does not make my payment of that tax voluntary. Someone who pays you to get out of the way so they can use the land similarly does not pay you voluntarily, as they have no choice in the matter if they want to use that land. This is unjust because in the case of type2 land, it is not yours to sell - you have no claim, in nature, on those who you demand to pay you.

Land titles are a huge source of unearned, looted income in the world. They devalue money (when you consider what is at its root) and they create poverty among productive men. Is that simple enough?

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I'm sorry for the question about your liver; that was ill-conceived.

Second of all:

Harrison, you need to reread the exchange. It was asked:

"Messing suggests a negative impact on you resulting from their interaction; can you give some examples of what you mean here?"

Examples of activities that have a negative impact on YOU, included:

Hunters shooting wildlife

Astronauts exploring space

Oil companies drilling uninhabited land

I'm trying to understand why those activities have a negative impact on you. Can you now explain what you meant?

They don't have any negative impact. That's not the point; the point is that none of them are anyone's business except the actors mentioned in each one.

I bring up those examples in order to underscore a principle (that what you don't own is none of your concern), which would dictate (within the context of the distinction between the metaphysical and the manmade) that you do not have a right to breathe, which contradicts the fact of your right to live.

I continue to refer to this contradiction because I find it to be a fairly obvious and self-explanatory one, which would suggest (if I am correct) that you should check your premises; specifically the implicit premise that this distinction, alone, can account for what we think of as "ownership".

Clearly, how something came to exist MUST play some role in its consequent ownership, but CANNOT play an exclusive role - on pain of the right to breathe.

You do have a right to breathe, do you not?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The value is in the land and what someone chooses to do with it.  There is value there by definition or someone wouldn't pay to use it. Probably why the first person voluntary paid for it in the first place. 

 

Taxes = Forced Exchange

Choice to use some one's land = Voluntary exchange

 

This is very simply. 

 

I fail to see how you keep calling this exploitation or force.  I ignore other people's property every day with incredibly simple ease.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I bring up those examples in order to underscore a principle (that what you don't own is none of your concern), which would dictate (within the context of the distinction between the metaphysical and the manmade) that you do not have a right to breathe, which contradicts the fact of your right to live."

Let's say we are specifically talking about air as a type2 existent. No one person has any more claim to it (or any less) than another. The act of breathing is effortful (even though automatic in man), and the natural wages of this continued effort is the air breathed in.

This establishes two non-contradictory points:

1. No man has a greater claim than you to the air you are breathing

2. The air you have breathed in is the wage for the work of breathing, and so belongs to you

We can apply this general principle easily.

An apple on a tree in the wilderness belongs to no-one, unless I pick it at which point it belongs to me. Gold in the hills belongs to no-one, the gold I have mined myself belongs to me. Etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiral,

Are you saying that land has intrinsic value?

If not, what do you think gives land value (not land titles but land specifically)?

"Choice to use some one's land = Voluntary exchange"

My arguement is that land as a type2 existent can't be private property by just means. I.e. it was not and cannot be earned. Handling stolen goods may seem voluntary when both parties are ignorant of that, but it does not give either party a right to that property.

It is like two people dealing with eachother, reasoning from false premises but reaching an overlapping consensus. They may act voluntarily in an exchange, however what they do decide to do is still irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I bring up those examples in order to underscore a principle (that what you don't own is none of your concern), which would dictate (within the context of the distinction between the metaphysical and the manmade) that you do not have a right to breathe, which contradicts the fact of your right to live."

Let's say we are specifically talking about air as a type2 existent. No one person has any more claim to it (or any less) than another. The act of breathing is effortful (even though automatic in man), and the natural wages of this continued effort is the air breathed in.

This establishes two non-contradictory points:

1. No man has a greater claim than you to the air you are breathing

2. The air you have breathed in is the wage for the work of breathing, and so belongs to you

We can apply this general principle easily.

An apple on a tree in the wilderness belongs to no-one, unless I pick it at which point it belongs to me. Gold in the hills belongs to no-one, the gold I have mined myself belongs to me. Etc etc.

 

You are saying, in essence that what we can do to make an apple, some gold in the hills, and the air we breathe that makes it property cannot be done to land.  

 

Ok.  That's interesting.  What theory of property makes claimed land different from the picked apple, minded gold and breathed air??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig24,

 

"Ok.  That's interesting.  What theory of property makes claimed land different from the picked apple, mined gold and breathed air??"

 

As I said before, simply saying something is yours is not sufficient to make it yours. 

 

Under your logic, I could stand in front of an apple tree in the wilderness and demand of anyone who comes to pick apples off of it to pay me an apple each time, simply because I declare it is mine. 

 

Well the fact is my saying the tree is mine doesn't make it mine, and I have no greater claim to those apples than anyone else. Someone who ignores me and picks an apple without giving me one does't violate my property rights because the tree and the apples on it are no more mine than theirs.

 

Likewise with land. My claiming some (type2) land doesn't make it mine, and I have no greater claim to it than anyone else. Someone who declines to give me a "donation" out of what he got from working the land doesn't violate my property rights. What he gets from working the land is his natural wages which belong to him, and I have no right to interfere in his work. 

 

This context leads me to answer your question directly. A picked apple, mined gold or breathed air are examples of type 1 existents. They are the wages a man receives for his effort and they become his property accordingly. Type2 land does not and did not result from human effort; it is not a return to labour. As something that cannot be earned, any person's claim to have a superior right to it is invalid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I better take these one at a time to not cause a miscue:

 

 

Are you saying that land has intrinsic value?
 

No - It takes a valuer - In this case me.  I obviously bought it for a reason.

 

If not, what do you think gives land value (not land titles but land specifically)?

 

I do - I bought it because I valued something in it. 
 

"Choice to use some one's land = Voluntary exchange"

My arguement is that land as a type2 existent can't be private property by just means. I.e. it was not and cannot be earned.

 

I earned the money and I paid for it - Case closed.  

 

 

Handling stolen goods may seem voluntary when both parties are ignorant of that, but it does not give either party a right to that property.

 

If the property was stolen it would naturally be returned to the original owner.  This is a common issue with property and as an example why Pawn Shops have a delay period before they can sell something they bought.

 

A free society has a system in place to deal with this already and has for years. 

 

Unless your taking the Marxist/Diggers position that all property it theft (which I do not think you are).

 

 

It is like two people dealing with eachother, reasoning from false premises but reaching an overlapping consensus. They may act voluntarily in an exchange, however what they do decide to do is still irrational.

 

Me saving my money and buying something from someone who voluntarily agrees to sell it to me is irrational? 

 

I do not even know what kind of society that would be but it sounds communal without even the barter system.  Yikes. I don't think you mean that by the way but it is the picture I get. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiral,

 

What reason did you buy the land for? Was it an arbitrary, instinct driven impulsive purchase? If not, how did you imagine it would serve your rational self-interest?

 

The whole line you are taking about paying for it with money you've earned misses the point and begs the question. The same mistake Snerd made. No-one is questioning the legitimacy of the money you are using to pay for the land, as you say it was earned. But you have to buy the land from someone. How did they get it? They paid for it like you did. Who did they pay? At root it was either a homesteader or a conqueror. If it was a conqueror, the chain may now be so long that achieving justice now would be impossible and disruptive, so for practical reasons perhaps you will disregard the fact you are trading property that doesn't rightfully belong to you.

 

If it were a homesteader, what did you pay him for? Was it the cultivated farmland (a type 1 existent), or maybe you wanted the land for its location and potential (type 2). The price may have been a combination of the two factors. What you pay him in respect of what constitutes type 1 I am not interested in. That is a completely legitimate trade between the two of you. What I am interested in is the trade of the type 2 existent - the uncultivated land value the location attracts. My view is that the homesteader ordinarily will have no entitlement in natural justice, to retain what you paid him for the value of the uncultivated land.

 

To understand why you will have to go to the root of what gives a location its value.

 

Finally your point about irrationality. You're right, I didn't mean voluntary trade is irrational. There is nothing wrong with voluntary trade. However the fact that the trade was legitimate doesn't make the reasons for buying or for selling necessarily sound or legitimate. Your argument seems to be that so long as a decision to buy land meets a decision to sell land, it confers rationality upon all aspects of the transaction. My point is that the validity of the transaction is secondary to the validity of each participant's property rights.

 

If Ben buys a watch from Ian for £50 and sells it to Louise for £100, then the transaction between Ben and Louise is completely valid. However this is irrelevant if it turns out the watch Ben got from Ian was stolen, or that Ian mistakenly thought it was his watch but it wasn't. Ben and Louise's transaction rested on the false premise that Ian owned the watch legitimately when in reality he didn't. It wasn't in their rational self-interest to buy the watch from Ian, that they originally misjudged it to be based on incomplete information and traded voluntarily doesn't change that fact.

 

That many people trade (type2) land all the time similarly doesn't make it a rational or just practice, just because the trade seems voluntary and legitimate to the market participants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. No man has a greater claim than you to the air you are breathing

Now we're getting somewhere.

2. The air you have breathed in is the wage for the work of breathing, and so belongs to you

I did not know that I engage in productive work, literally, while I sleep. Does this "work" which divides type 1 from type 2 consist of nothing more than muscular contractions? Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What reason did you buy the land for? Was it an arbitrary, instinct driven impulsive purchase? If not, how did you imagine it would serve your rational self-interest?

 

It doesn't matter - I wanted it so I bought it. 

 

 

But you have to buy the land from someone. How did they get it?

 

Don't know and don't care - Unless the owner is committing fraud in giving it to me and we have a court system to deal with that. 

 

They paid for it like you did. Who did they pay? At root it was either a homesteader or a conqueror. If it was a conqueror, the chain may now be so long that achieving justice now would be impossible and disruptive, so for practical reasons perhaps you will disregard the fact you are trading property that doesn't rightfully belong to you.

 

Straw Horse - It doesn't matter where he came by it.  By definition if it is land in the legal jurisdiction of a Free Country.

 

Conquerors, the EPA, and other means to take land by force are by definition not a free Country and are a different discussion.  

 

Moral of the story: If I by land in Michigan I am fairly certain the status of limitations on the French-Indian war have expired :) 

 

If it were a homesteader, what did you pay him for? Was it the cultivated farmland (a type 1 existent), or maybe you wanted the land for its location and potential (type 2). The price may have been a combination of the two factors. What you pay him in respect of what constitutes type 1 I am not interested in. That is a completely legitimate trade between the two of you. What I am interested in is the trade of the type 2 existent - the uncultivated land value the location attracts. My view is that the homesteader ordinarily will have no entitlement in natural justice, to retain what you paid him for the value of the uncultivated land.

 

So basically your argument is somewhere once upon a time centuries ago land was not owned and someone moved on to it, therefore it is not litigate property?  

 

To understand why you will have to go to the root of what gives a location its value.

 

The owner, in this case me.  

 

Finally your point about irrationality. You're right, I didn't mean voluntary trade is irrational. There is nothing wrong with voluntary trade. However the fact that the trade was legitimate doesn't make the reasons for buying or for selling necessarily sound or legitimate. Your argument seems to be that so long as a decision to buy land meets a decision to sell land, it confers rationality upon all aspects of the transaction. My point is that the validity of the transaction is secondary to the validity of each participant's property rights.

 

The rationality is really irrelevant.  If I buy something and if you sell it there is many good or bad reasons you or I might do it. There is a reason the concept "buyers remorse" was invented.  

 

If Ben buys a watch from Ian for £50 and sells it to Louise for £100, then the transaction between Ben and Louise is completely valid. However this is irrelevant if it turns out the watch Ben got from Ian was stolen, or that Ian mistakenly thought it was his watch but it wasn't. Ben and Louise's transaction rested on the false premise that Ian owned the watch legitimately when in reality he didn't. It wasn't in their rational self-interest to buy the watch from Ian, that they originally misjudged it to be based on incomplete information and traded voluntarily doesn't change that fact.

 

Reason or rationality has nothing to do with this.  If you buy a stolen good there us a legal process to be followed.  

 

That many people trade (type2) land all the time similarly doesn't make it a rational or just practice, just because the trade seems voluntary and legitimate to the market participants.

 

Yes - It does by the reason I listed previously.  

 

And by the way - it is 100% justified by the market participants.  To be justified by a non-market participant is not a free market but a permission-market.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't you basically talking about justice for people who died a long time ago? Yeah, it sucks that original property owners didn't have their rights respected. If they're alive, justice is possible through law. If the rights violator is alive, justice is possible. If both are dead, it is a tricky legal scenario to say if the current owner ought to do anything. It depends on what the new owner's role is. If both are dead hundreds of years ago, we can't blame others for their ancestor's misdeeds. What justice is owed to them? It doesn't follow that current owners are committing injustices!

 

The only way for you to make sense here is to judge people on collectivist grounds - your ancestors wronged my ancestors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eiuol,

My point is that type2 land has been established as private property based on false premises. This happened long ago but that is irrelevant, those premises are as false today as they were in our ancestor's times.

As type2 land is unearned, it could never become private property in the proper sense of what that is. Regardless of how it ended up being called private property and recognised as such in law is irrelevant. It is what nature provides freely to us all.

Spiral's flawed logic for instance would permit slave trading. His line of reasoning would have it that if someone offers to sell you a woman, it matters not a jot that he has no right to sell her. Provided you want to trade and you're protected in law, there would be no injustice in slave trading.

I'm saying it matters what one is trading. There is nothing wrong with me selling you my car. There is something wrong with me charging you for something I have no more right to than you. There is also something wrong with me collecting the value of other peoples work, which I have no claim to. Wouldn't you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiral's flawed logic for instance would permit slave trading. His line of reasoning would have it that if someone offers to sell you a woman, it matters not a jot that he has no right to sell her. Provided you want to trade and you're protected in law, there would be no injustice in slave trading.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning.  If we distinguish between humans and non humans (land qualifies as non human) and recognize humans as having rights because they are human (the rational animal), then making land property will never result in thinking you can also make humans property as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying it matters what one is trading. There is nothing wrong with me selling you my car. There is something wrong with me charging you for something I have no more right to than you. There is also something wrong with me collecting the value of other peoples work, which I have no claim to. Wouldn't you agree?

You can't just say "it was stolen, so it remains stolen. You have no claim to stolen property", property isn't only about tracing the history. The status of the property changes over time. Property isn't provided by nature, so injustice doesn't propagate forever. The things OF property may exist by nature, it's not provided AS property. You're right that a voluntary trade doesn't always mean it is a proper trade, but what's at stake is the property in question at this time, right now. It's one thing to say you stole a watch last week and now you're selling it, it's another thing to say your great-great-great grandfather stole the watch as a pirate and now you're selling it.

 

Is the second example also illegitimate?

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eiuol,

It's more fundamental. All type 2 land is property that everyone has a right to equally; by calling it private property - whenever this first occurred is irrelevant - we create an institution where it is possible for the "owner" to deny all others from exercising their natural rights. This violation of rights occurs and causes damage to others when the owner restricts others, usually until they pay a fee in the form of economic rent (which is not the same as rent as a layperson would understand it). This tends to happen at point of let and/or sale. Tracing the history isn't important - the existence of type 2 private property is what is improper and the cause of injustice as just explained.

Private property isn't provided by nature, you are right. Private property is type 1 property, man-made and earned. Land is provided freely by nature, it is not man-made and is not earned. Private ownership of type 2 land is impossible unless the mechanism of establishing private property is not earning something but claiming it, as a looter or moocher would do.

In the case of the watch example, it is a poor example as a watch is a type 1 existent - man-made and earned in the first instance. Therefore private ownership of it is not open to contest - it legitimately qualifies as someone's private property. By the way, if you were to sell it, you will be benefiting from a crime whether it was your own crime or your ancestor's. You would also be defrauding the buyer in a way, if they trade with you on the belief you are the legitimate owner of the watch. Or would you disagree?

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig,

"I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. If we distinguish between humans and non humans (land qualifies as non human) and recognize humans as having rights because they are human (the rational animal), then making land property will never result in thinking you can also make humans property as well."

Human's seek rights as a political tool, but they stem from life as our standard of value. If you take away a human's ability to live independently, make them live by permission, you are violating their inalienable rights. Man requires access to type 2 existents in order to live independently. If a practice forces them to pay for access to type 2 existents in sweat, body or in economic rent, then you are forcing them to pay for permission to live, whether that practice be slavery or otherwise. How is this not a violation of man's inalienable rights?

I think a lot of people get rich from land ownership directly, or indirectly through investment portfolios for example. This is speculative as I have not researched it properly. But consider this. Once I own land I collect economic rents on it in perpetuity. I don't have to do anything for the rest of my life if I own or have inherited enough land. So long as people want to live and work in a location I can retire, but still receive a perpetual income from those who are producing wealth. My descendants too can benefit when I pass my land down to them, allowing this to continue through generations. I can, using my land titles, dispose of others' wealth without trading anything in return other than moving out of their way. As they make the area more prosperous, and demand rises, I can increase the rent further still and take more of the wealth they are creating all for the taxing job of reviewing their rent every so often. In some areas, I may demand so much in economic rent that those who create wealth are left in poverty. What is this if not parasitical behaviour?

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know three people who tried amassing wealth by means of renting properties, two in single family residence and one with an apartment complex. At best, it's a part time job. Building maintenance from general wear and tear over time, is an ongoing factor, is either performed by the owner, or sub-contracted out at going rates (what is the owner's time worth?).

 

If the property is owned free and clear, the lack of paying interest on a mortgage allows a more competitive price to be offered, while those with mortgages have to take that expense into consideration. The free and clear owner only need charge less than the mortgaged landlord, helping to maximize the advantage of being free and clear. The mortgaged landlord has to look for ways to cut costs to keep the venture profitable.

 

As a landlord, screening tenants for credit worthiness takes time and effort. Maintaining occupancy to ensure a continued income stream takes time and effort.

 

Government regulations have to be taken into consideration. Ambiguous discrimination laws have to be taken into consideration when screening applicants. Code enforcement for landlords may differ from primary resident enforcement. Boom and bust cycles from monetary policy can impact the desirability in a given local.

 

While choosing to pursue a career in property management of this sort can be a productive enterprise, it is an oversimplification to suggest that perpetual income is guaranteed to descendants in perpetuity. Demanding twice the going rent in a given local is likely to leave the property tenant-less, as those who create other forms of wealth seek more economical means of satiating their needs in terms of living quarters. 

 

Businesses in a given area, consider the cost of living for determining whether to remain in a given local or move to a more economical viable geographic vicinity.

 

While a person lives and breaths, the requirements of food, clothing and shelter remain. If rents do not cover these requirements, one either finds supplemental productive activity to cover them, or sells their properties in piecemeal or in full, to more economical hands.

 

You [Jon] ask:

"What is this[,] if not parasitical behavior?"

 

. . . wishful thinking, comes to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Dream Weaver.

Someone who is renting out an apartment building and managing the assets is dealing in type 1 property (man-made, earned). I'm not interested in that because it is legitimate private property, and those who pay the apartment owner for their services and for use of their apartments are entering into a legitimate trade. Once the mortgage has been paid off, the apartment owner's costs will fall and like you say they can be more competitive. Great. However this has nothing to do with the issue I'm raising which relates to type 2 existents. An apartment building and the services the landlord provides result from productive endeavour so it is not the focus.

The issue and focus is restricted to the economic rent the owner charges and keeps, taken out of the overall rent the tenant pays. It might not create a significant income for those who have a small portfolio, such as in the examples you have given. However whether they receive a small or large income from economic rent, they are not entitled to it.

In the UK 0.6% of the population own 69% of the land we live on. The cost of land was about 2% of the value of a house in the 1930s and is now 70%. Are you telling me that those 0.6% are not, in no small part, extremely rich due to the land they have control of?

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...