Georgists object to the individual-as-landowner collecting the £1,450 pcm as the only reason they can collect it, is the fact they can forcibly prevent someone from using the land unless they do pay it. It is therefore coercive and immoral.
Do you have the right to prevent random strangers from staging a concert in your house; violently if necessary?
I can’t take that last comment seriously.
I can’t take that last comment seriously.
And why is that?
The comment was irrational; a straw man argument loaded with sarcasm.
How could you seriously ask it? Of course strangers can’t force their way into your home to hold a concert. Of course you would have the right to intervene if they tried if the police were unable to do so on your behalf.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. I can only presume you were acting in a facetious way.
Of course strangers can’t force their way into your home to hold a concert.
Does that become false after some length of time, or is it true in perpetuity?
A chunk of metal formed into a machine is capital, and can be claimed as private property (due to production), and can be and rented out to another for a fee.
A piece of land formed into apartment building is capital, and can be claimed as private property (due to production), and can be rented out to another for a fee.
The metals are limited on this earth, and so are the lands. There can be said to be an “economic rent” for both cases. The only difference at the present moment is in the size of this “economic rent” due to the difference in scarcity between metal and land.
This idea of yours that suggest that land (an area of the surface of earth and a limited space above that surface) is inherently different from other natural resources seems to be based on scarcity rather than principle.
But the truth of the matter is, all resources on this earth is limited.
Right now you are arguing that when all the land is claimed, all the land owners that rent out their land is extracting an unearned “economic rent” as part of their rent fee due to the scarcity of land.
In the future when all the metals on this Earth is mined out, would not your logic also suggest that any metal owners that rent their metals out is extracting an unearned “economic rent” due to the now scarcity of metal?
This logic then goes on and on: any natural resource of any kind that gets scarce would apply.
In terms of principle, there is no difference between land and all other resources; your argument so far I can see is based purely on level of scarcity.
Practically, the fact of the matter is, land and resources on Earth might be limited, but they are infinite in the universe.
Harrison. It’s true for so long as the home is yours.
Hi Vect, welcome to the discussion.
A machine and an apartment building are both examples of capital.
Metals which have been obtained by a man are part of his wealth - initially as wages until forming part of his capital stock. When he later chooses to use or dispose of it, there is no economic rent involved in the exchange - no matter how scarce the metal is.
Economic rent is the return to land, which is collected by whoever controls land. Land by the way has a wider definition than the surface of the Earth in this discussion. It refers to all materials, forces and opportunities occuring in nature - including the whole universe.
Land in the context of the Earth is no more scarce today than it was thousands of years ago and will be no more scarce in thousands of years time. The location value may be higher or lower depending on productive use. We may discover a stock of precious metals and begin obtaining them for industrial use - the location value will go up. We deplete a stock of precious metals - this then reduces the value of the location to zero for those who wanted the precious metals from it. However the very existence of economic rent depends on the existence of private property in land. If someone wanted to use land which is not being used productively they would just go and use it. There would be no one to pay economic rent to. Only private property in land allows an owner to interfere with you and make you pay for his permission first.
If people are in competition for exclusive use of land, they outbid each other to gain that exclusivity for themselves. This implies there is someone who owns the land in order to trade it with those bidders. If land ownership is wrong, the person who collects the location value - the economic rent, is not entitled to it. He has no more right to the land than the people bidding for it. But he can use coercive force to ensure someone pays him - the one who pays him the most.
This is basically enslavement - as much as taxation is.
By scarcity I mean scarcity of unclaimed land. Not the amount of land physically. And economic rent is something that arises from scarcity/exclusivity. Your argument is as I understand that this rent is unearned and immoral.
Which leads to another problem you have with this latest post.
You are having trouble with the process by how an individual can claim a land.
How an individual claim the right to a chunk of metal over his fellow peers, that you can see, because of the act of mining (since he put his effort into mining that chunk of metal out of the earth and his fellow men didn’t, therefore he have the right to that metal over his fellow men) (also I wouldn’t call that a “wage”, wage is an item traded between two individuals over items they both claimed, this (mining) on the other hand is an act of claiming unclaimed item)
Similar situation for claiming land. There is a piece of unclaimed land (great view):
-Individual_1 arrives to this land
-Individual_1 likes the view on this land and buildings a large building
-Individual_1 claims the land the building stands on
You are going to argue: The building belongs to him, but not the land! The building came into existence because of Individual_1’s labour, but the land has always been there!
Right to Property is a claim to a property over your peers, over other individuals; it’s not some metaphysical link between you and your property.
Just as claiming a chunk of metal is first-come-first-serve (whoever mined that unclaimed chunk out of this earth, or whoever flagged the piece underground), same goes with land.
If you are going to argue that the building can belong to Individual_1 but not the space (land) that the building occupies, how would that work? Building is a physical object that have to occupy space. If he cannot claim the land that the building occupies, does that mean another can? And what would happen to his building if another claims that land? What if the new landowner wants to remove the building?
Moreover, by what rationale should another individual be able to claim the land that Individual_1’s building sits on? The land was unclaimed before; the act of I1 constructing a building on top of it should by all reason grant him claim over that land above his peers. If you say it does not, then what does? And by what merit should an after-come individual be able to claim that piece of land after I1 have already constructed a building on top of it?
There are many things to say, all of which point to Georgism and Objectivism being completely incompatible, to “economic rent” being some sort of anti-concept, to you confusing government force with voluntary free trade and to your continued belief in some sort of intrinsic value to “land”. I may take the time to answer more fully but first I would like an answer to the following two questions.
First is the one you promised me a reply to earlier:
Are you arguing that natural resources cannot be owned or that real estate cannot be owned?
Second is an explanation for your blatant self-contradiction:
Aluminium can be owned
the aluminium atoms (which cannot be owned)
Marc, You say George’s arguments and Objectivism are completely incompatible. I believe this to be an unfounded assertion. I have already provided evidence which contradicts your assertion. If you are going to make a claim, I would like you to substantiate it. Economic rent as an ‘anti-concept’? You would benefit from studying economics. I’m confusing voluntary free trade with government force? Please point out where. I hold a believe in the intrinsic value in land? I have already stated clearly I hold no such belief. You are just attacking blindly. There is no self-contradiction but you have created the illusion of one by selectively removing the context. Aluminium atoms are not man-made and cannot be owned. Aluminium, when produced, is the producer’s wage for producing. The producer by earning his wage has a right to gain, use, keep and dispose of the aluminium. When we say the aluminium is his property, that he owns the aluminium, we are refering to his exclusive rights to action, not to the object. He has no rights to aluminium because it is unowned. I repeat. He has rights to action with regards to the aluminium he has produced, because it is his wages for producing. Rand states, and I echo: “Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object.” A property right is not a right to a group of aluminium atoms. It is a right to the actions and consequences of producing aluminium atoms. Do you agree with Rand or disagree? Let’s keep this discussion productive. You are free to disagree with me. You can disagree with me without exploring the reasoning first if you like. What progress do you think we can make? If none, thank you for your contribution.
There may be some issues with the site - the above post has lost paragraphing and I cannot edit it without a 404 error.
Aluminium atoms are not man-made and cannot be owned. Aluminium, when produced, is the producer’s wage for producing. The producer by earning his wage has a right to gain, use, keep and dispose of the aluminium. When we say the aluminium is his property, that he owns the aluminium, we are refering to his exclusive rights to action, not to the object. He has no rights to aluminium because it is unowned.
When you say that a person has “no rights to the aluminum,” what do you think that entails?
If I own a piece of aluminum foil, and I consequently have the right to crumple that foil up, or turn it into an origami crane, or sell it, or melt it down and refashion it into something else, or throw it into the trash – if it is my aluminum foil – then what could it possibly mean to say, “however, I do not own the aluminum itself”? What do you believe that distinction serves to accomplish?
Hi Don, I didn’t write “no rights to the aluminium”. I wrote “no rights to aluminium”. Can you see the distinction?
Hi Don, I didn’t write “no rights to the aluminium”. I wrote “no rights to aluminium”. Can you see the distinction?
Really??? You mean the only thing we’ve been debating for 3 pages is the word “the”??? Well, OK, this should be easy then.
So you would agree then that men have the right to own THE land that they improve and that no one can remove them from that land if they don’t want to go, no matter how much more productive those others might be? And that the land owner can charge whatever rent he decides, while, of course, he can force no one to pay such rent? And, of course, since he owns the land, no one can force him to accept a rent lower than what he has decided to charge.
Problem solved.
I think what Jon here is ultimately trying to argue is that an individual can only claim the right to use land/aluminium for productive purposes. But since they can’t actually claim the right to own the items, only the right to use them for productive purposes, if they are not using the land/aluminium they currently hold to produce things, then they can’t just hold on to it and rent it out collecting an unearned economic rent, and must gave the land/aluminium up.
Am I getting it right Jon?
Hi Vect,
I’m not sure if you have ‘jumped in’ to this discussion so let me cover something from an earlier post again, which I hope will help clarify what economic rent is.
There are three factors of production - land, labour and capital. The return to production (wealth), is divided between the return to land (economic rent), the return to labour (wages) and the return to capital (interest). Economic rent exists when there is exclusive control over land which is used as a factor of production - whether there is scarcity of unclaimed land or not. Economic rents reflect the value of the location - of the opportunity - not scarcity of unclaimed land.
Consider you buy a piece of farming land in the middle of nowhere. You live off of the farm but have no neighbours within reasonable proximity to trade with. If you were to sell or rent out the land, you would get very little economic rent for it. I then build a railway which passes by your farm giving you access to towns and cities. As a direct result your farmland becomes more desirable. It’s location value improves because of my investment in capital. You could rent it out and sell it at a higher value - the higher value representing the increased economic rent. What gave rise to the additional economic rent? Was it scarcity of unclaimed land? Or my new train link?
You asked:
“If you are going to argue that the building can belong to Individual_1 but not the space (land) that the building occupies, how would that work? Building is a physical object that have to occupy space. If he cannot claim the land that the building occupies, does that mean another can? And what would happen to his building if another claims that land? What if the new landowner wants to remove the building?”
Put another way, you could say:
Human beings are physical objects that have to occupy space. If a man cannot claim the land that he occupies, does that mean another man can? And what would happen to him if another claims the space he is occupying? What if the new spaceowner wants to remove him from his space?
Most posters to this discussion thread would answer as follows.
A man will have to find space that no-one else is claiming. If there is no such available space, he will have to pay them permission to occupy space or be evicted from it by force. He will have to pay for this permission by doing work for them, rather than for himself. This is perfectly moral because he does this voluntarily - he has volunteered to be a slave (whether he sees it this way or not) rather than be dead. The fact that such a man in this situation is owned by other men, is neither here nor there. He agreed to it voluntarily!
The building in your example has to occupy space. It is your building. No-one can interfere with it. So you occupy the land exclusively by virtue of this fact. Who would have the right to take over your building, or do something which as a consequence would violate your rights? If I wanted to lay a water pipe beneath your building, if my doing so causes damage then you would have every right to seek redress from me. I have no right to damage your property. If I don’t, then you have no right to charge me to be allowed to lay a pipe beneath your property on the basis that you own the land. It is unowned - rights do not apply to it.
You have to occupy space. You are your own person. No-one can interfere with you. You occupy a space exclusively by virtue of the fact you are a physical being. Who would have the right to take ownership of you, or do something which as a consequence would violate your rights? If I wanted to work productively near to you, if my so doing forcibly prevents you from working then you would have every right to seek redress from me. I have no right to prevent you from working to sustain your own life. If I don’t forcibly prevent you from working, then you have no right to charge me a permission fee so I can work. Land is unowned - rights do not apply to it.
Marc, do you disagree with Rand’s statement about property rights being a right to action and not to an object?
You seem to be.
Man does not own the land he improves - he owns the improvement. By your reasoning, if I wanted to claim a house all I need to do is paint it. My improvement - a better colour paint, would, by your logic, make the whole house mine. After all, without the house how would the paint remain in place?
Improving land earns you the improvement - you were the cause of it, so it is yours. Land is not man-made - you are not the cause of it - it is not yours.
Problem solved.
You could rent it out and sell it at a higher value - the higher value representing the increased economic rent. What gave rise to the additional economic rent? Was it scarcity of unclaimed land? Or my new train link?
Both can.
Less unclaimed land means more demand on already claimed land. That scarcity translates to higher valuation for existing claimed land due to exclusivity.
Valuation can also be increased due to improvements, as is your case of train link, and increase demand that way.
This is economic basics. The reason I didn’t mention this second fundamental reason for increase in demand is because it didn’t pertain to the topic that was in discussion: When all the land (in a relevant area) is claimed, that’s when people gets forced to rent from existing claimed land; that’s why I only brought up the first reason. If there were unclaimed land people would just go claim them instead of be physically forced to rent.
But now I see there was actually no reason for me to bring up the source of economic rent. Your main argument is something else entirely.
On the main topic, given what you just said, so then I was pretty close to the mark with my last post: Your main argument is that an individual can only claim the right to use space/land, but not total ownership of it. If they are not going to use (or even not already using) the space/land in question, then they can’t horde onto it, prevent others from using it, and/or extract an unearned rent from others for using it. If they are not using it anymore, that part of space/land gets returned to unclaimed status, and another can use/claim it.
From what I’ve seen, there is some confusion concerning exactly what you are arguing. Right now I’m just trying make sure I understand correctly; the above is your central argument is it not?
Vect,
“I think what Jon here is ultimately trying to argue is that an individual can only claim the right to use land/aluminium for productive purposes.” No, producing material values is the origin of property rights. It is the law of causality. That which you are the cause of, belongs to you until disposed of. You are never the cause of land.
“But since they can’t actually claim the right to own the items, only the right to use them for productive purposes,”
No, its through the creation of material values that one has the right to gain, keep, use or dispose of them. If I build a boat, I am the cause of it and so I gain it, can keep it, use it or dispose of it. My right is as permanent as my being the cause of the boat’s existence, until disposed.
" if they are not using the land/aluminium they currently hold to produce things, then they can’t just hold on to it and rent it out collecting an unearned economic rent, and must gave the land/aluminium up."
See above. Any material values you are the cause of can be exchanged in accordance with the Trader Principle. Why must you give up your wealth?
You are not the cause of land, it is not yours, therefore it is nonsensical to say you would be giving it up at any time. The fundamental principle is non initiation of force. Economic rent is only payable to landowners but as they do not and cannot own the land, what right do they have to collect it from producers? It is not a trade - the payment of economic rent is always coercive in nature. It is immoral.
As per my previous reply to you, an improvement I make can enhance the value of economic rent you have the power to collect. It is the community of producers, the intelligent doers that are the cause of the magnitude of economic rent, it is private property in land that is the cause of it.
George’s remedy was to take the unearned economic rent that landowners have no moral right to via a tax and return it to the community who does have a moral right to it. This falls short of restorative justice in my view. I would want restoration to follow the law of causality closely.
The difficulty is that it is hard to calculate, in a complex society, what affects progress is having on economic rent. My new road might increase the economic rent in an area, but so too might improvements to private healthcare, education and policing. To what extent did my improvements raise economic rents and therefore to how much restoration am I due?
I don’t know a practical way to answer that.
I’ve heard mention of a citizen’s income funded by the land value tax, or using the land value tax to wholly fund the government (scrapping all other taxes - a minimal government could easily be funded in this way). The latter has points in its favour but like I said the moral basis should be restoring wealth to those who were the cause of it and it doesn’t achieve that.