Private property rights in natural resources

[Saurabh]

To me, it is unfair for anyone to claim anything unless he took some action to appropriate, use or create that thing.

To assume any meaning for the concept "fair" would be to beg the question.

I see what you are saying.

Please help me understand how can I define fair without supporting yours or mine claim.

May I request you to give me your definition of 'fair'?

[Jake_Ellison]

Jake's definition already refuted my argument. I hope you will agree that a man-made definition can't refute an argument.

What definition was that? All I said was that your version of morality has nothing in common with Objectivist Ethics, and that it is useless because it is unpractical.

I think I may have given a sketchy definition of rights at the beginning, but it's definitely not my definition.

May I request you to give me your definition of 'fair'?

It doesn't violate someone's rights is the only valid definition. And that's only valid if rights are objectively defined. Saying that everyone has the right to an equal share of land is not objective, it's arbitrary. It would give some people the arbitrary power to define one Ethics and impose it on everyone. The state (a group of people) would impose this Ethical system on everyone, rather than have individuals choose their own Ethics.

It is a question of tyranny vs. freedom. Do we want a society in which individuals choose their morality, and the initiation of force is not permitted, or do we want a society in which the norm is force, based on ethics that requires its proponents to initiate force against others, merely to survive?

And stop leading the debate. If you want a controlled debate, get a third party to control it. Until then, stop telling us which points are acceptable and which aren't. There's nothing more absurd than a debate moderated by one of the sides.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[softwareNerd]

Please help me understand how can I define fair without supporting yours or mine claim.

I suppose one can, but it will have to be rather abstract. Off the top of my head, I'd say that to be fair means to deal with people in a moral way.

May I request you to give me your definition of 'fair'?

Off the top of my head, I'd say that to be fair means to deal with people based on a rational judgement of them and of what they deserve. In other words, to act fairly is to act with justice. I view it is an aspect of morality, so it precedes politics and is broader than respecting (political) rights. Edited October 29, 2009 by softwareNerd

[Saurabh]

Off the top of my head, I'd say that to be fair means to deal with people in a moral way.

In other words, to act fairly is to act with justice.

Thanks.

The problem now is that we need to define what is moral and what is justice.

And we need to define these terms in such a way that does not support either yours or mine position. Because a definition itself can't be used to refute or support an argument. This is the point I was making earlier.

So, I fully agree with you that such as definition of 'fair' will have to be rather abstract. Which is why this debate is causing so much friction. Because quite often we are focussing on words, rather than the spirit of the argument. I hope you will understand.

Let me know your reaction, and then we will proceed. Thanks!

Edited October 30, 2009 by Saurabh

[softwareNerd]

The problem now is that we need to define what is moral and what is justice.

Okay, top of my head definition would be..... Abstractly, an act is moral if it is the right thing to do, in principle.

I don't think one needs to defined justice, that is a synonym of fairness.

[Saurabh]

Okay, top of my head definition would be..... Abstractly, an act is moral if it is the right thing to do, in principle.

I don't think one needs to defined justice, that is a synonym of fairness.

Thanks.

Now, taking a step back, the question I pose (to myself as well): how best we can conduct this debate so that we use simple/basic concepts (and not derived ones) to make the argument?

e.g.

If I make the claim that: It is unfair to allow pvt. appropriation on scarcity rent on original-state land.

And if now someone refutes my claim saying that by definition of 'fair', we must allow such approapriation. Then this argument is invalid.

Hence, both debating need to agree on a common-minimum-definition of fair, and then do the debate.

To me this common-minimum-definition of fair is: sth is fair for a person to do, if that can be done by others as well. I am more than willing to refine this definition, based on the responses.

Cheers.

[softwareNerd]

To me this common-minimum-definition of fair is: sth is fair for a person to do, if that can be done by others as well. I am more than willing to refine this definition, based on the responses.Cheers.

So, if I can walk about freely, a murder can do so too? I'm sure your answer is "no". Therefore, you see one has to go back to my -- better -- definition, which speaks to what people deserve. And, to know what people deserve, one has to have a theory of morality.

[Saurabh]

So, if I can walk about freely, a murder can do so too? I'm sure your answer is "no". Therefore, you see one has to go back to my -- better -- definition, which speaks to what people deserve. And, to know what people deserve, one has to have a theory of morality.

I take you point. Let us first discuss the issue of morality.

My understanding of morality says: one can only claim/deserve what one has earned.

I am also claiming that appropriation of a thing is not the same as earning it. You guys are saying it is. right?

I guess this is where I am having dificulty. If I appropriate a thing which I did not produce and which is scarce, then it precludes others from appropriating it (albeit in future). Is that fair?

[softwareNerd]

If I appropriate a thing which I did not produce and which is scarce, then it precludes others from appropriating it (albeit in future). Is that fair?

Yes, it is fair. If you make a spaceship and go to the moon, you have the right to do so, and the right to the area on the moon that you use, and the resources that you use. It would be extremely unfair for any other person who does not know how (or, knowing, does not act) to assert a claim against you. As for non-existent people, they have no claim either. Your action gives you the relevant claim.

I will concede that if we lived in a very different world, we might have to come up with a very different theory of politics. However, we live in this one, where resources and values are practically infinite. As I said in an earlier post, that is an important context for a theory of moral politics.

Edited October 30, 2009 by softwareNerd

[freestyle]

I will again point you to this article: The Property Status of Airwaves By Ayn Rand

It addresses all of these property rights from an Objectivist viewpoint. If you are truly interested in resolving this "debate", you should read this article and point out anything specific you disagree with. That would illuminate the differences pretty clearly, imho.

[Saurabh]

I will again point you to this article: The Property Status of Airwaves By Ayn Rand

It addresses all of these property rights from an Objectivist viewpoint. If you are truly interested in resolving this "debate", you should read this article and point out anything specific you disagree with. That would illuminate the differences pretty clearly, imho.

Freestyle ,

The article indeed addresses my issue and also counters the kind of claim (from Justice Frankfurter) that I am making.

Thanks. I will read the article, and will get back if I have disagreement/confusion.

Softwarenerd,

Thanks for your responses. Is it ok if I don't respond to your moon example, and instead focus on AR's argument in that article? I assume you are in agreement with the article as well.

[Saurabh]

Freestyle ,

I read AR's article, and below I copy the paragraphs essential to her argument.

1. Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property - by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.

2. The chief argument in support of the notion that broadcasting frequencies should be "public property" has been stated succinctly by Justice Frankfurter: -[Radio] facilities are limited; they are not available to all who may wish to use them; the radio spectrum simply is not large enough to accommodate everybody. There is a fixed natural limitation upon the number of stations that can operate without interfering with one another."

3. The fallacy of this argument is obvious. The number of broadcasting frequencies is limited; so is the number of concert halls; so is the amount of oil or wheat or diamonds; so is the acreage of land on the surface of the globe. There is no material element or value that exists in unlimited quantity. And if a "wish" to use a certain "facility" is the criterion of the right to use it, then the universe is simply not large enough to accommodate all those who harbor wishes for the unearned.

4. If the government had adhered to the principle of private property rights, and the pioneers' ownership had been legally established, then a latecomer who wished to acquire a radio station would have had to buy it from one of the original owners (as is the case with every other type of property). The fact that the number of available frequencies was limited would have served, not to entrench the original owners, but to threaten their hold, if they did not make the best economic use of their property (which is what free competition does to every other type of property). With a limited supply and a growing demand, competition would have driven the market value of a radio (and later, TV) station so high that only the most competent men could have afforded to buy it or to keep it; a man unable to make a profit, could not have long afforded to waste so valuable a property. Who, on a free market, determines the economic success or failure of an enterprise? The public (the public as a sum of individual producers, viewers and listeners, each making his own decisions -- not as a single, helpless, disembodied collective with a few bureaucrats posturing as the spokesmen of its will on earth).

1 is her argument. 2 is an opposite argument. 3 is her refutation to 2. 4 provide more support to her position.

My argument is same as 2. So, I will respond to 3 and 4.

On 3:

AR refutes 2 by claiming that: A "wish" to use a certain "facility" is the not the criterion of the right to use it.

In fact I am also saying the same - the right of usage belongs to he who can bid the highest for the use.

My difference of opinion is over the right to 'own'- which she does not address directly (or am I missing anything?).

On 4:

This statement argues against govt. allocation.

And, I have no argument here. My proposition does not imply govt. allocation. It implies the following:

• Free market decides who may 'use' the natural resources.
  
• Free market decides what is paid for the use.
  
• The part of this payment (scarcity rent) that did not arise from an individual's action, is now collected from all available land, and is re-distributed equally (or put to a social use, e.g. defence).
  

Edited November 4, 2009 by Saurabh

[Jake_Ellison]

And, I have no argument here. My proposition does not imply govt. allocation. It implies the following:

• Free market decides who may 'use' the natural resources.
  
• Free market decides what is paid for the use.
  
• The part of this payment (scarcity rent) that did not arise from an individual's action, is now collected from all available land, and is re-distributed equally (or put to a social use, e.g. defence).
  

You're wrong about how the "free market" works, and you're wrong about what prices are.

A free market is simply a market in which individuals are free to deal with each other.

A price, in the free market, is the monetary value the participants in a trade agree to, to be payed in exchange for a non-monetary value. The phrase "the free market decided that price" is extremely fallacious, since it treats the "free market" as a person. In fact, the specific participants in the deal determine the price, not the "free market". Sometimes, Objectivists might use the phrase, "let the free market determine prices", but they mean strictly to say let participants in the trade decide prices, and quite frankly should probably start saying it that way, so there isn't any more confusion.

In conclusion, if you want the free market to "decide" the price one pays for one's land, it can't, it's not a person. The way prices are usually determined in the free market is by the consent of the participants in the trade. The free market cannot determine the price of land, if it is not owned by anyone. Land needs an owner, and then the owner and the renter can agree on the rent.

[Zip]

[*]Free market decides what is paid for the use.

That is a lie. You decided because you want to take something for nothing.

As soon as you charge anyone a fee for the "inherent value" of the land then the producers and manufacturers and everyone in the production chain, be it a loaf of bread or an automobile will add the appropriate % to whatever they normally would have charged. Well done you. You have just instituted the most comprehensive tax in human history. You have also probably made it much harder for the poor to buy everything they need, you have probably also destroyed some jobs because the companies paying for your inherent value tax now have less money with which to hire that new worker.

Please drop the pretense that you agree with free market principles and laissez-fair capitalism, you are just another tax grabbing looter trying to get something for nothing.

The reason that you can not talk about specifics here in this thread is because the specific way that your plan will be implimented puts the lie to everything you claim to believe in. Feel free to prove me wrong. Tell us all how you will establish the inherent value and tell us how you will collect it and ensure that it is paid.

The devil as they say is in the details.

[Saurabh]

As soon as you charge anyone a fee for the "inherent value" of the land then the producers and manufacturers and everyone in the production chain, be it a loaf of bread or an automobile will add the appropriate % to whatever they normally would have charged. Well done you. You have just instituted the most comprehensive tax in human history. You have also probably made it much harder for the poor to buy everything they need, you have probably also destroyed some jobs because the companies paying for your inherent value tax now have less money with which to hire that new worker.

Please drop the pretense that you agree with free market principles and laissez-fair capitalism, you are just another tax grabbing looter trying to get something for nothing.

The reason that you can not talk about specifics here in this thread is because the specific way that your plan will be implimented puts the lie to everything you claim to believe in. Feel free to prove me wrong. Tell us all how you will establish the inherent value and tell us how you will collect it and ensure that it is paid.

The devil as they say is in the details.

Zip,

The devil is indeed in details. I wanted us to agree on broader moral issues before diving deeper into implementational aspects of the idea. But I will, for now, focus on the implementational aspects.

I will try to answer the following questions raised by you:

1) Inherent value will be passed on to consumers, and this will make poor even poorer

2) How to calculate inherent value?

3) How to collect it and distribute it?

4) How to ensure that it is paid?

Actually, I will first respond to 1 and 2, as these are more basic issues. Will respond to 3 and 4 later.

Also, I will not react to your personal comments about me as it is irrelevant for the debate.

Now, please bear with me for 1/2 days. I need to read what Henry George and Ricardo have already said about 1 and 2. Thx!

[Saurabh]

You're wrong about how the "free market" works, and you're wrong about what prices are.

A free market is simply a market in which individuals are free to deal with each other.

A price, in the free market, is the monetary value the participants in a trade agree to, to be payed in exchange for a non-monetary value. The phrase "the free market decided that price" is extremely fallacious, since it treats the "free market" as a person. In fact, the specific participants in the deal determine the price, not the "free market". Sometimes, Objectivists might use the phrase, "let the free market determine prices", but they mean strictly to say let participants in the trade decide prices, and quite frankly should probably start saying it that way, so there isn't any more confusion.

In conclusion, if you want the free market to "decide" the price one pays for one's land, it can't, it's not a person. The way prices are usually determined in the free market is by the consent of the participants in the trade. The free market cannot determine the price of land, if it is not owned by anyone. Land needs an owner, and then the owner and the renter can agree on the rent.

Dear Jake,

I agree with you. I did not use the right words in this post - though I meant what you are saying.

So, what is your point (in the context of the debate)?

[Jake_Ellison]

Dear Jake,

I agree with you. I did not use the right words in this post - though I meant what you are saying.

So, what is your point (in the context of the debate)?

My point is that "free market decides" is an oxymoron. The free market does not decide, in a free market it is left up to individuals to decide, through peaceful means.

What I am saying is that in order for land to be used as part of the free market, it must be owned by individuals. If the price of land is set through some other mechanism, then you don't have a free market, you have the ultimate tyranny, where an individual cannot even exist, in space (on land), without the permission of some arbiter (which, by definition, is the government)

I doubt that's what you were saying, you were in fact claiming that a free market is possible, even if individuals can't own land, because you don't understand what freedom means. Freedom is the right to live a completely independent life, without having to seek permission or help from any other human being, no matter what. Your idea of freedom starts with having to depend on society for the most essential requirement of life: space, where "free market" became the polar opposite of freedom, the source of society's control over the most essential aspect of an individual's life.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Randroid]

In fact I am also saying the same - the right of usage belongs to he who can bid the highest for the use.

Bid to whom? Why should people who didn't lift a finger to create a specific value receive a share of that value?

When someone like Columbus discovers a new continent, why should the people in the Old World, who didn't even know the land existed, get paid for graciously allowing the discoverers to use the land that they alone found, through their knowledge and effort?

You want something for nothing - literally. That is looting.

[Saurabh]

Bid to whom? Why should people who didn't lift a finger to create a specific value receive a share of that value?

When someone like Columbus discovers a new continent, why should the people in the Old World, who didn't even know the land existed, get paid for graciously allowing the discoverers to use the land that they alone found, through their knowledge and effort?

You want something for nothing - literally. That is looting.

Randriod,

I would say that is sharing - not looting. This specific value that I am talking about is created due to scarcity (due to population growth). Hence, we need to share this value - since no one has earned it.

On your Columbus example, it would be proper to allow him to reap the approapriate benefits of his discovery. However, he should not be allowed to own the entire continent cause someone else may discover it later on. Feel free to challenge me here.

Jake,

I will elaborate and clarify my position more once I respond later to Zip's questions.

[Randroid]

I would say that is sharing - not looting.

And if I don't feel like sharing what I have earned with people who did not earn it and therefore have no right to any of my stuff, what are you going to do then? Oh, yeah, that's right: Use force to take it anyway. Looting.

This specific value that I am talking about is created due to scarcity (due to population growth). Hence, we need to share this value - since no one has earned it.

Scarcity does not create value. No matter how rare something is, if it's useless to you, it's worthless to you.

However, he should not be allowed to own the entire continent cause someone else may discover it later on. Feel free to challenge me here.

First, I never said he should get to own the entire continent, only the land that he can actually use. Second, I already did challenge you on that one. An explorer (and everybody else) does not owe anything to future generations, or existing generations for that matter. You earn it, you own it. You don't earn it, you don't own it. It's not exactly quantum physics.

[Marc K.]

This specific value that I am talking about is created due to scarcity (due to population growth). Hence, we need to share this value - since no one has earned it.

Saurabh:

This debate is suffering because it is centered around a floating abstraction, we need to concretize it. We can tell you for years that there is no such thing as intrinsic value but if you don't see an example in real life you won't believe us.

For instance Randroid has given you a very good answer to your question but I suspect you don't believe it.

So here is what I suggest: give us a couple of examples in real life of what you consider an intrinsic value or a scarce resource and we'll show you how it has no value without human effort. Get very specific, unlike in your statement above where you speak of a specific value and then don't name one.

[Saurabh]

Saurabh:

This debate is suffering because it is centered around a floating abstraction, we need to concretize it. We can tell you for years that there is no such thing as intrinsic value but if you don't see an example in real life you won't believe us.

For instance Randroid has given you a very good answer to your question but I suspect you don't believe it.

So here is what I suggest: give us a couple of examples in real life of what you consider an intrinsic value or a scarce resource and we'll show you how it has no value without human effort. Get very specific, unlike in your statement above where you speak of a specific value and then don't name one.

Sure. Give me a day or so and I will try to concretize things. Thanks for your comments though.

[Zip]

Sure. Give me a day or so and I will try to concretize things. Thanks for your comments though.

<sarcasm>Wow, I didn't see that coming... </sarcasm>

[Saurabh]

Hi guys,

Below are the questions/objections that were raised by Zip, Freestyle, Jake and Randriod:

1) Scarcity does not create value. No matter how rare something is, if it's useless to you, it's worthless to you.

2) How do you know there is inherent value?

3) If yes, then how do you calculate it?

4) Inherent value will be passed on to consumers, and this will make poor even poorer

5) How to collect it and distribute it?

6) How to ensure that it is paid?

Here are my responses:

On 1)

That scarcity creates scarcity rents has been documented enough by Economists. Land is such a scarce source.

Randriod's point does not apply to my debate becuase it is common knowledge that land is useful (has fertile properties), and the Pioneer who discovered these properties thousands years back is no more.

On 2)

Let me replace the term inherent value by the term scarcity rent (let me know if anyone has objections).

Scarcity rent are a fact of life for land. This is becuase, the demand is growing by population, and supply in inelastic. Please see attached ppt slide that shows how scarcity rents arise.

On 3) This could be complex but I believe it is estimatable - and needs to be done by Economists.

so, my refined argument, based on 1-3, is:

- That Land has scarcity rent

- That this rent arises not due to any individual's creative action, but due to Demand exceeding a fixed Supply

- Hence, this rent needs to be taken back from the landlord

Now, let me know your reactions before I answer other questions.

mine.ppt

[softwareNerd]

Now, let me know your reactions before I answer other questions.

All previous objections apply.

This is like the economist who wanted to open a can without a can-opener, and said "Let's assume a can-opener".

BTW: Your mention of economists like Ricardo is an appeal to authority. Ricardo's focus on the mythology of "rent" was just another rationalism in the long line of rationalizing economists. Indeed, some say he started economics down on this painfully fruitless path.

Edited November 6, 2009 by softwareNerd