Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Owning Land?

Rate this topic


Jon Southall

Recommended Posts

New Buddha,

You are familiar with leases. I work in leasehold management myself and I too am familiar with a wide variety of residential and commercial leases. However, our familiarity with leases is irrelevant.

What I'm interested in hearing from you is how your ideas would actually structure a lease agreement?  If a developer/tenant agree on a triple-net, 10 year lease at $30/sf with a $50/sf move in allowance, how would your ideas impact this type of agreement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Buddha, I do not know what a triple-net lease is. UK leases I have come across don't use that terminology. 

 

The contents of a lease really is irrelevant to this discussion. The land value tax would not have any bearing on the structure of a lease because it would not change the nature of the agreement between the leaseholder and freeholder. If a land value tax was imposed on a freeholder, it would be separate from any lease or tenancy agreements the freeholder might have entered into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it addresses both, I think.

The full paragraph is available from the Ayn Rand Lexicon's Honesty entry. To address the last part of the question this was in response to:

. . . they may not wish to accept it. How would you try to get through to them?

 

If they do not wish to accept it, then are they being intellectually honest? As to getting through to them, as you would with any rational individual, you reason with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If they do not wish to accept it, then are they being intellectually honest?" I would say not.

 

"As to getting through to them, as you would with any rational individual, you reason with them." I shall endeavour to do so. 

 

I was asked a while ago to write out a case from first principles so it can be seen how it builds up. I think I will leave this discussion for now and come back when I have time to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Buddha, I do not know what a triple-net lease is. UK leases I have come across don't use that terminology. 

 

The contents of a lease really is irrelevant to this discussion. The land value tax would not have any bearing on the structure of a lease because it would not change the nature of the agreement between the leaseholder and freeholder. If a land value tax was imposed on a freeholder, it would be separate from any lease or tenancy agreements the freeholder might have entered into.

I haven't read all your posts, but by the fact that you have chosen to engage in a discussion on an Objectivist forum, I assume that you in some way believe what you think are the basics of Objectivism, but also believe that you have found a fault or contradiction?  And that if we accept your beliefs we will abandon ours?

 

If so, I fail to understand how you would think that Objectivist would ever accept a "land value tax" - especially if the reason for it is punitive and/or a means to address what you perceive to be a social injustice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vect posted:

"Think about it, you defined Land as all naturally occurring materials. Yet the fact stares at you in the face that the vast majority of Capitals in existence (other than intellectual property and financial instruments) are made of naturally occurring material (aka your land).

So anyone renting these out, would be in fact, as a portion of their rent, collecting a return to land, your economic rent, a fee for permission to use atoms they do not own. And these renters should, as you advocate, pay a compensation, for this collection of immoral economic rent.

Now you won't admit that because you saw how ridiculous it would be."

This is a repeated point made in this argument. If we were to set this out as an argument, it's logic would be as follows:

P1. Land is all naturally occurring material

P2. Capital contains land

P3. It is wrong for a landowner to forcibly collect and keep unearned income on unimproved land

C. Therefore it is wrong for a capitalist to collect unearned income for the unimproved land value of capital

The conclusion they arrive at doesn't follow from the premises because it assumes capital contains unimproved land. However capital contains only improved land - the capital is man-made. No element of it is unimproved. The fact land was improved to create capital - the fact it was produced by man makes it his property.

 

When someone rents out a house and that rent is split between wages, interest and economic rent, it is only the collection of economic rent by and for the landowner which is unjust. Our argument would be as follows:

P1. Land is all naturally occurring material

P2. It is wrong for a landowner to forcibly collect and keep unearned income on unimproved land

C. Therefore it is wrong for a landowner to collect unearned income for the unimproved value of land

 

So now you agree that improvement (aka labour) CAN claim natural materials (those pesky atoms) as property (aka Capital). Then I guess there is learning happening here after all.

 

What you are arguing now then is the next question that follows, what degree of labour action (aka improvement) is proper to claim a certain natural material (aka your Land) as property.

 

The simple act of picking a wild apple from a wild tree is generally considered a proper enough labour action to claim that piece of all natural grown fruit as your property.

 

You argue having an apartment building constructed isn't enough to claim the ground the building is on. What more actions would you suggest is needed by an individual for him to claim the ground his building is sitting on then?

 

(Also, your other argument concerning land value been linked to community improvement, that additional value which comes from community improvements isn't injected into the dirt a building is on, but is injected into the building itself. If a building is hovering 10 feet above the ground on futuristic anti-gravity platform never touching dirt, that "land value" bonus would still apply. This is because the "land value" is the proximity of your building (capital) in relation to other's improvements (capital). It has nothing to do with the ground your building is sitting on.)

Edited by VECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If so, I fail to understand how you would think that Objectivist would ever accept a "land value tax" I know of only four Objectivists that would. In all cases they have applied the law of causality and realised payment of economic rents is a redistribution of wealth due to privilege and not a trade, that the payer is buying permission to live.

"- especially if the reason for it is punitive and/or a means to address what you perceive to be a social injustice."" Objectivists uphold individual rights - one being that an individual has the right to the fruits of his labours. This right is being breached.

Stop trying to imply I do not understand Objectivism or that I am a collectivist arguing for social justice. It is intellectually lazy of you to do so when you admit to not reading through the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vect,

Did you not notice my repeated and consistent emphasis on the law of causality, the difference between improved and unimproved land and that it was unimproved land (Land) that the focus was on? You make out I have changed my position, but it is only now that you are closer to discovering it.

Any improvement is owned. There is no question of degree. I'm focusing on the claim to the unimproved.

Part of the ground an apartment building sits on is its foundations. The foundations are owned. There is no need to own anything else.Any damage by another land user to your capital, would breach your rights to that capital. It is that breach you would be entitled to. The same would be true if someone drove into your parked car on an unowned field. They would be liable for damages even though no-one owns the field.

The location value is used synonymously with land value - it is not injected anywhere but is individuals appraisal of the location value. If individuals perceive being close to schools, hospitals and good transport links is more valuable and pay economic rent, that does not inject the hospitals, schools and roads into either the ground or the apartment block. It is a value placed on permission to live in that location and to have access to those values. The land owner does not own these improvements so why is he being paid for them, and more importantly why do you defend the practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vect,

Any improvement is owned. There is no question of degree. I'm focusing on the claim to the unimproved.

Part of the ground an apartment building sits on is its foundations. The foundations are owned. There is no need to own anything else.....

Jon,

How does this apply to the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on compaction, geo textile fabrics, imported structural fill or geo-piers or piles?  Or money spent on the management of high water tables or out gassing of methane from organics?

 

You state above that "an apartment building sits on it's foundations" as if you are qualified to make such a statement.  Are you?  What do the foundations "sit" on?

 

Or what about money spent on system development charges, right-of-way dedications, traffic impact fees, environmental impact studies? Or the extension of underground utilities, bio-swales, landscaping, sidewalks,  parking lots?

 

Do you have any understanding what is required to develop a property?

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a property developer but even if I was it doesn't change the fact that your point is irrelevant.

As I have repeatedly written what man is the cause of is his property. You've just listed a whole load of human activities or consequences of it. That's not the problem. We are focusing on unimproved land - what man is not the cause of. Try to focus on what the thread is about please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"How can you use the law of causality as an argument for the existence of a non thing?"

Yeah how can you? I was using it to identify what makes something someone's property - but if you think property is "the existence of a non thing" you are probably in the wrong place.

"What is an unimprovement?" That was really poor English, but if you are refering to say an undeveloped vacant plot in the middle of a city, you'd be close to the mark.

"and how does one, even immorally, attach a value to it and charge someone based on it?" Easy. You just claim it as your property, prevent others from using it unless they pay you and then wait for them to pay you so they can access the community. In fact the more time such "property" passes hands, the less attributable the guilt and most landowners will eventually think they own an entitlement to it.

I say most people.

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you use the law of causality as an argument for the existence of a non thing? Whati s an unimprovement and how does one ,even immorally, attach a value to it and charge someone based on it?

 

His argument is that land is not someone's property if they do nothing with it. He is making a lateral run around property rights by claiming it's not your property unless you use it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man’s mind and labor." Galt's Speech.

I agree with the above statement.

The following statement is supposedly my position:

"His argument is that land is not someone's property if they do nothing with it. He is making a lateral run around property rights by claiming it's not your property unless you use it."

Use is not the condition I am applying. If someone builds a boat but then doesn't use it, then the boat doesn't cease to be his.

The condition is production - as was Galt's - all property and all forms of wealth are produced by what? Owning land? Or by man's mind and labour. I say it is the latter as did Rand via Galt. This is not "a lateral run around property rights" but a recognition of what ALL property and ALL forms of wealth are produced by.

Is Galt right or wrong? Is it a fact that all property and all forms of wealth are produced by man's mind and labour, or is it produced by title and force? If you think the latter you are mistaken. The latter is the means by which wealth is taken - not the means by which it is created.

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jon

 

You said a lot of things and your past positions have been contradictory to say at best.

 

For instance. You asked me rhetorically whether you can own the genetic molecules within the wheat one grows. You argued the aluminium atoms of aluminium ore one mines out of the ground cannot be owned.

 

By all account of your past posts you have had a strong position in saying that natural material cannot be claimed as property (unless, as you claim, humans can will these matter from non-existence into existence)

 

Of course, you also stated improvement/capitals can be owned. And this is where the biggest contradiction in you position happened. All those improvement/captials made of natural atoms (pretty much everything), can they or can't they be owned?

 

So now with your latest post you state labour actions can claim ownership of Land, then that's that, nothing more needs to be said.

 

 

Your other argument that apartment renters needs to pay a compensation back to the community because a part of their property value is linked to community improvement, my mentioning about where that value is injected is only to clear away any confusions, which you did not have, so that's that.

 

The main argument against this line of thinking lies in the matter of choice, in that it's not voluntary. Say your neighbouring building suddenly decides to undergo large improvement that would result in increase of your own location value, which with your logic, would involve you paying increase compensation to them. Does that mean you then have a choice of not allowing your neighbour to improve their property?

 

Also like I've mentioned, location doesn't exactly just inject bonus into rent, it injects bonuses into sales and investment. By your principle, sales and investments an individual receives would also need to pay compensation to the community for the bonuses these received from surrounding improvements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vect,

An amazing set of misrepresentations in a single post, you keep surpassing yourself.

The point I made to you was about what rights are - they pertain to actions and not to objects. Aluminium atoms - do they pertain to an action? You are even more foolish that you already appear if you are claiming individuals have a right to aluminium atoms. Next you will be claiming we have a right to a six bedroom house, or we have a right to job, or a right to free healthcare or a right to gold. Rights follow the law of causality. If via my mind and labour I produce wealth, that wealth is mine.

Is there a contradiction there? You seem to think so.

Stop making things up. I have asked you more than once. Where have I ever stated you can will something into existence?

What is the difference between a tree in the wilderness and a chair made from wood Vect. This is obvious to everyone but you. But you state they are the same. Study epistemology and come back to us when you can identify distinctions.

Did I state labour actions can claim unimproved land? More dishonesty and misrepresentation.

Re the neighbouring property, you would only get more economic rent if you charged it, and as discussed at length if this is taxed you are not losing wealth you have created so you incur no loss. You would have no say over the neighbour improving his property unless it involves a breach of your property rights. Economic rent is not your property so no breach occurs if it rises and is taxed as a result of his improvement.

Your last comments repeat the logical error I have drawn attention to before. There is no economic rent involved in the trade of goods and services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, how about "dispose".  That is what property is - something you have a right to dispose.  

 

That was the original use of property, as in you have property in your home.  

 

Either way I'm helping out the other poster here.  Bottom line is you don't think property is property if it isn't disposed in some way. Use it or lose it.  It will clarify things for him.

 

As for the Galt and Rand statements, I'm not interested in Arguments from Authority or there abuse.  It's common sense.  If I save my money for years and buy some land up north - It is my land.  What I do (or not) is no one's business.  If you want to use land in a different way then you can jolly well save the money and buy your own.

 

OK - Let's cut to the chase.  Why do you want to force me to use my land?  What is the purpose here? Do I loose my land if I don't use it?  What is the end game?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The point I made to you was about what rights are - they pertain to actions and not to objects. Aluminium atoms - do they pertain to an action? You are even more foolish that you already appear if you are claiming individuals have a right to aluminium atoms. Next you will be claiming we have a right to a six bedroom house, or we have a right to job, or a right to free healthcare or a right to gold. Rights follow the law of causality. If via my mind and labour I produce wealth, that wealth is mine.

 
That's right, my claiming I have a right to a piece of aluminium I dug up is the same as my claiming I have a right to a six bedroom house that I never brought.

 

I'm just going to ask a very simple question: If I dig a piece of aluminium out of the ground, can I or can I not rent that piece of all-natural aluminium atoms out?

 

Stop making things up. I have asked you more than once. Where have I ever stated you can will something into existence?

 

Right here:

Yes Vect. A straw man argument.

Are you claiming man is the cause of the existence of aluminium atoms? That is simply false.

If you produce some aluminium that aluminium will be yours.

 

 

That right, only if I play God and produce some aluminium from non-existence into existence, then I can claim to own them no? Otherwise I can only "borrow" them from nature for my own use only. Renting is a no no (can't rent what's not yours and all that).

 

 

Did I state labour actions can claim unimproved land? More dishonesty and misrepresentation.

 

Right here Jon:

 

P1. Land is all naturally occurring material
P2. Capital contains land
P3. It is wrong for a landowner to forcibly collect and keep unearned income on unimproved land
C. Therefore it is wrong for a capitalist to collect unearned income for the unimproved land value of capital


The conclusion they arrive at doesn't follow from the premises because it assumes capital contains unimproved land. However capital contains only improved land - the capital is man-made. No element of it is unimproved. The fact land was improved to create capital - the fact it was produced by man makes it his property.

 

 

Admins forcing me to play the gentleman or they'll delete my post. But I gotta say, your legendary hypocrisy and evasiveness is just BEGGING to be made fun of.

Edited by VECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VECT, I can appreciate the relationship between the terms 'ridiculous' and 'ridicule' and think that there is a time and place for it.

Some of us here take a little longer to put our finger on it than others who hone in on it right away. I've spent the last few days rereading Galt's Speech wondering what I was missing.

 

Jon Southall, at best, you're taking an amphiboly and whitewashing it with a meaning that is just not there. The idea that the law of causality is somehow to be delimited to property only consisting of what man caused is, quite frankly, bizarre in my mind. The law of causality applies to man just as it does to every other entity that acts according to its nature. If you want to know how the law of causality is the source of property rights, you are going to have to look elsewhere.

 

You asked earlier, and I replied, about the historical development of ownership - well you find that by studying the historical development of property rights, not by bringing an isolated dubious theory in and insisting that everybody's understanding of it is wrong. I've not read it myself, and given your presentation of it thus far, does not entice me to consider doing so.

 

 

"If they do not wish to accept it, then are they being intellectually honest?" I would say not.

 

"As to getting through to them, as you would with any rational individual, you reason with them." I shall endeavour to do so. 

 

I was asked a while ago to write out a case from first principles so it can be seen how it builds up. I think I will leave this discussion for now and come back when I have time to do so.

I thought "come back when I have time to do so" applied to "writing out a case from first principles so it can be seen how it builds up," Jon, tell me, am I wrong here?

 

Edited: Added

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"How can you use the law of causality as an argument for the existence of a non thing?"

Yeah how can you? I was using it to identify what makes something someone's property - but if you think property is "the existence of a non thing" you are probably in the wrong place.

"What is an unimprovement?" That was really poor English, but if you are refering to say an undeveloped vacant plot in the middle of a city, you'd be close to the mark.

"and how does one, even immorally, attach a value to it and charge someone based on it?" Easy. You just claim it as your property, prevent others from using it unless they pay you and then wait for them to pay you so they can access the community. In fact the more time such "property" passes hands, the less attributable the guilt and most landowners will eventually think they own an entitlement to it.

I say most people.

A vacant lot is an example of unimproved land.

Build apartments on it and charge rent for use of the apartments.

A portion of the rent collected(via trade) is unearned because the apartment sits on land that one time had no building on it, this is an example of the law of causality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiral Architect,

"Use is not the condition I am applying. If someone builds a boat but then doesn't use it, then the boat doesn't cease to be his. 

The condition is production - as was Galt's - all property and all forms of wealth are produced by what? Owning land? Or by man's mind and labour. I say it is the latter as did Rand via Galt. This is not "a lateral run around property rights" but a recognition of what ALL property and ALL forms of wealth are produced by."

Why are you still fixated on use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiral Architect,

"OK - Let's cut to the chase. Why do you want to force me to use my land?"

Actually the issue of focus here is a landowner forcing others to pay for the location value of unimproved land. Not how or if land is used.

"What is the purpose here? Do I loose my land if I don't use it?"

You're assuming unimproved land is your property, the very claim I am questioning. If you have improved land, you own those improvements. You don't lose those improvements through not using them.

"What is the end game?"

The end game is to identify correctly what is private property. If man is to sustain his life long term he needs to be free to think and act in his own rational self-interest. When he creates wealth by thinking and doing, he needs to own the wealth he has produced, the consequences if others own it is that he will be to an extent enslaved. His rights to property are exclusive rights to action, not to objects. He does not live by permission, he lives by producing values and trading them with others who produce value.

When others trick him in to trading the wealth he has created in exchange for something which is not owned by his trading partners, his rights are being breached. To ensure he is not tricked he needs to understand what is and what is not someones private property. In buying a car he carries out a HPI check to see if it has been recorded stolen, he avoids ponzi schemes.

If he is smart, he will question why he is paying a landowner for a land value attributable to the unimproved value of land, which is itself attributable to the value of the land around that land, which itself is attributable to the wealth created by other individuals in that community. He may decide that although he wants to offer a price to use that location and bid higher or before anyone else, in recognition of the value of that location, he will want his payment to go to those responsible which does not include the landowner. The landowner is just an intermediary who does not pass on payment to those who have earned it, he keeps the unearned income for himself.

The behaviour by landowners is without virtue and ignores what wealth creation and trade are both premised on. Landowners who produce no values are enriched at the expense of those who do. I didn't think Objectivists favored parasitical behavior or would forcefully defend it but clearly many of the ones here do.

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dream_Weaver,

"The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man’s mind and labor." Galt's Speech."

"The idea that the law of causality is somehow to be delimited to property only consisting of what man caused is, quite frankly, bizarre in my mind."

Lol.

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...