Pages: [1] 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: The King has new clothes (Read 2155 times)
|
|
5thconcerto
|
I've been following greenbacks geo-lib thinking, and have come to the realization that the "king" has new clothes. The 'king" being socialism, and the new clothes are greenbacks justifications of it. taking from a productive member of society, and giving it to someone else is socialism. You can dress it up in green clothes, but it is still socialism. All greenbacks theories merely change the idea of taking from the most productive and redistributing it according to need, to just giving it to everyone else. That is the only change I see. Anyone else see any difference?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SteveA
|
Yes, you just redefine everything as owned by government and have then assure everyone has "equal access" rights to it.
Wait until you have to pay the "economic scarcity rent" for trying to claim sole ownership of your car (You can't do that. What about all the other people you're denying access to that "space"). Sure, it's a labor based product but wait until the claim that the rubber in the tires came from scarce trees or that the space over the road you're driving on is owned by the public, so claiming private ownership of your car is violating public space etc.
Like some other people said, property rights are determined by the private sector when people dispute over ownership. So courts can likely handle most issues of property disputes. If we give government the role of predetermining what our property is (and then only renting it to us too ... argghhh) then we're all left at the mercy of government.
Yes, the private sector will have disputes over property but at least the emperors are smaller and there's a process to appeal for justice available but when government declares emminent domain on your property and offers you 50 cents on the dollar, you're relatively screwed.
Government's just hired a hired hand to help watch the place but you don't sign over property rights to the security guard unless you're a socialist trying to convince someone else to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Fruitless, born a thousand times, lies barren. Unguided inspiration, yields random motion, circumscribed in destination, going nowhere. Guidance uninspired, always true in facing, stands immobile. But fixed upon that destination firmly and with inspiration lofted; beget your dreams."
|
|
|
|
Greenbacks
|
taking from a productive member of society, and giving it to someone else is socialism no - the definition of socialism is that the means of production are owned collectively. what are the factors in production? wages are the return on labor interest is the return on capital economic rent is the return on land in a Geo-Lib world wages and interest are private property and economic rent is owned in common. collective property would be anything needed (a court house) to fullfill a minarchists government's role funded by a head tax. what is so difficult to understand? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
5thconcerto
|
taking from a productive member of society, and giving it to someone else is socialism no - the definition of socialism is that the means of production are owned collectively. what are the factors in production? wages are the return on labor interest is the return on capital economic rent is the return on land in a Geo-Lib world wages and interest are private property and economic rent is owned in common. collective property would be anything needed (a court house) to fullfill a minarchists government's role funded by a head tax. what is so difficult to understand? If socialism is merely, as you say, the ownership of production, then why is land controlled by government in a fully socialist state? Socialism at its most complete is the collectivist ownership of everything. You have merely diluted it to say that there IS private ownership, but at the cost of your economic rent, which in the end dictates its use, and costs. Your theory, as I see it, is a spread the wealth around scheme, nothing more. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lloydbob1
Guest
|
taking from a productive member of society, and giving it to someone else is socialism. No, Its Theft! Lloyd |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Greenbacks
|
If socialism is merely, as you say, the ownership of production, then why is land controlled by government in a fully socialist state? specifically the COLLECTIVE ownership (as in controlled by a delegated authority) of the MEANS of production. because land is one of the three factors of the means production in a socialist state it is controlled collectively. You have merely diluted it to say that there IS private ownership, but at the cost of your economic rent, which in the end dictates its use, and costs capturing the economic rent and returning it directly to those that create it in NO WAY dictates how the land can be used. yes, for the sake of liberty it asked that it be used efficiently. Your theory, as I see it, is a spread the wealth around scheme, nothing more you are entitled to your opinion but it is not supported by your argument |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SteveA
|
no - the definition of socialism is that the means of production are owned collectively. what are the factors in production? wages are the return on labor interest is the return on capital economic rent is the return on land in a Geo-Lib world wages and interest are private property and economic rent is owned in common. collective property would be anything needed (a court house) to fullfill a minarchists government's role funded by a head tax. what is so difficult to understand? Common property does not have to be held by government and redistributed. For example a small villiage surrounds a lake that they've used for a long time to fish for sustenance. Governments do not automatically have the authority to claim this lake as public property and redistribute the fish elsewhere. That's socialism. Redistribution of the means of production. The same could be said for land. Your belief that no land can be privately owned is wrong. Maybe the lake example isn't the greatest. There could be conflicts with other people that might use the lake but if we assume there's a limited stock of fish and over fishing it would deplete this stock that the people live near and using the lake have an interest, then it is commonly owned but not by everyone else outside this villiage. The same goes for some landowners in a community they built. They are the sole builders and might have property rights disputes in the area but don't owe other people removed from it or people who didn't help build the community (for example, someone who moved there to rent use of it). The most you could possibly claim they were using of any scarce natural resources would just be the ground under this community but if other people elsewhere own a similar amount then there's no debt between the groups. I don't even think the amount of land used has be similar if a voluntary transaction between people was made that transferred ownership of land (as opposed to a war where one side forcefully took the others property). |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 08, 2004, 01:43:32 pm by SteveA »
|
Logged
|
"Fruitless, born a thousand times, lies barren. Unguided inspiration, yields random motion, circumscribed in destination, going nowhere. Guidance uninspired, always true in facing, stands immobile. But fixed upon that destination firmly and with inspiration lofted; beget your dreams."
|
|
|
|
Greenbacks
|
Governments do not automatically have the authority to claim this lake as public property and redistribute the fish elsewhere. in NH all lakes greater than 10 acres and the groundwater are held in public trust (in common) and therefore the fish too. thus, everyone has an equal access right to fish via public access so long as they don't infringe on anyone else's equal access right. so long as there is enough and as good left for others there is no problem - I can take the fish for my personal consumption and it is my property to do as I wish. but at the point that my equal access right to fish no longer leave as much and as good for others I am infringing on others rights because I am materially disadvantaging them - my enclosing of the commons harms their equal right to access. at that point the government acts rightfully when they keep me from harming someone else's interest (enforcing a negative right). sound familiar? - speech - land so what is to be done for everyone's equal access rights (freedom) to be preserved? the community decides with the help of the best scientists what is the sustainable yield of the common asset - in this case how many fish can be taken so that the asset is preserve for all. They then design a permit system that sets up a scarcity market for fish and sell them on the open market (economic rent) returning the money directly to the community so as no one has an unfair material advantage. Your belief that no land can be privately owned is wrong and your continued conflating of my views is equally wrong. for efficiency reasons land is best held in private hands but the economic rent must be shared in order to preserve everyone's equal opportunity interests so that no one is economic disadvantaged by enclosing the commons which they do not create. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 08, 2004, 01:48:42 pm by Greenbacks »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Greenbacks
|
There could be conflicts with other people that might use the lake but if we assume there's a limited stock of fish and over fishing it would deplete this stock that the people live near and using the lake have an interest, then it is commonly owned but not by everyone else outside this villiage congratulations! you have just taken the first step to starting to understanding geo-libertarianism after 8 months and 1000 posts. at this rate you will be onboard when the 20K agree to move. like I said - in the state of NH all bodies of water over 10 acres plus the fish and all the groundwater are owned in common. so any resident of NH has an equal access right to fish any of the lakes over 10 acres - not the surrounding village. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SteveA
|
Your belief that no land can be privately owned is wrong and your continued conflating of my views is equally wrong. for efficiency reasons land is best held in private hands but the economic rent must be shared in order to preserve everyone's equal opportunity interests so that no one is economic disadvantaged by enclosing the commons which they do not create. You claim to allow private ownership but you'd don't. You allow private 'use' of the land but government ultimately owns it. Here's few litmus tests for ownership: Can someone freely give their property to someone else? (No, the person receiving would be obligated to pay more rent under your scheme) Can people be kicked off their land? Not if it's privately owned but yes under your land value tax. Governments do not automatically have the authority to claim this lake as public property and redistribute the fish elsewhere. in NH all lakes greater than 10 acres and the groundwater are held in public trust (in common) and therefore the fish too. thus, everyone has an equal access right to fish via public access so long as they don't infringe on anyone else's equal access right. so long as there is enough and as good left for others there is no problem - I can take the fish for my personal consumption and it is my property to do as I wish. but at the point that my equal access right to fish no longer leave as much and as good for others I am infringing on others rights because I am materially disadvantaging them - my enclosing of the commons harms their equal right to access. at that point the government acts rightfully when they keep me from harming someone else's interest (enforcing a negative right). sound familiar? - speech - land so what is to be done for everyone's equal access rights (freedom) to be preserved? the community decides with the help of the best scientists what is the sustainable yield of the common asset - in this case how many fish can be taken so that the asset is preserve for all. They then design a permit system that sets up a scarcity market for fish and sell them on the open market (economic rent) returning the money directly to the community so as no one has an unfair material advantage. Ok, I agree with most of what you've said (and had actually gone back before you replied to add some of these thought into my post) but still let's look at land and see how this applies: There's a large amount of land out there that's not being used. People can build cities and use some land but as long as there's open land available for people to develop on, then there's no real scaricty of land (there's some scarcity but not much). It's like allowing people to catch up to 500 fish a year in the ocean to limit overfishing but if someone doesn't go fish, they can't claim a share of the fish that other people caught because they didn't do the work to catch any. So if you look at land, the act of fishing is like using land to produce value from it. If some people build a fishing boat and go out and fish within whatever limits were set, other people can't claim any ownership of their labor catching the fish. It's the same with land, if some people actually utilize their land and create structures that make it more valuable, there is no debt to any outside parties and it's even better because they created the wealth where none previously existed, whereas someone might claim that even catching some fish within a limit still depletes the stock. In this case they are building another lake and stocking it with their own fish, so owe noone else. It's a product of labor, the land was previously unused and had little value. They increased the land value through labor and you've explicitly stated you don't want to tax labor or capital. There could be conflicts with other people that might use the lake but if we assume there's a limited stock of fish and over fishing it would deplete this stock that the people live near and using the lake have an interest, then it is commonly owned but not by everyone else outside this villiage congratulations! you have just taken the first step to starting to understanding geo-libertarianism after 8 months and 1000 posts. at this rate you will be onboard when the 20K agree to move. like I said - in the state of NH all bodies of water over 10 acres plus the fish and all the groundwater are owned in common. so any resident of NH has an equal access right to fish any of the lakes over 10 acres - not the surrounding village. I've agreed there are issues regarding pollution and overfishing could be viewed under the same framework if there was already an implicit common ownership of the lake. Though I'd still disagree that people far removed from the area have a claim to the lake. Can't land owners in the area charge people to visit the lake? I don't think people without any prior right to use the lake gain a positive entitlement to be able to freely access the lake. I was just saying that government would need to mediate disputes over the common aspects of the lake, like overfishing or water use but those common aspects I don't believe apply to everyone else in the world. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 08, 2004, 02:31:44 pm by SteveA »
|
Logged
|
"Fruitless, born a thousand times, lies barren. Unguided inspiration, yields random motion, circumscribed in destination, going nowhere. Guidance uninspired, always true in facing, stands immobile. But fixed upon that destination firmly and with inspiration lofted; beget your dreams."
|
|
|
|
Greenbacks
|
Can't land owners in the area charge people to visit the lake? I don't think people without any prior right to use the lake gain a positive entitlement to be able to freely access the lake. they don't have a positive entitlement - the government is silent on this (remember the speech discussion?) - they don't have right to INFRINGE on anyone else's equal access right (remember you are born with it - not having to pay or be gifted?) see Squam Lake issue in NH and public access which might have gone to the Supreme Court of NH I was just saying that government would need to mediate disputes over the common aspects of the lake, like overfishing or water use but those common aspects I don't believe apply to everyone else in the world why do you continue with your hyperbole? WORLD?I said the STATE of NH holds the water and fish within them in public trust - not the world. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SteveA
|
We agree private ownership is good for conservation of resources because, for exmaple, sending the revenues from fishing the lake to everyone in the state doesn't provide adequate responsibility. People in the state are likely to vote themselves a larger portion of fish and there's no worry about the fish running out because there are still other lakes to pilliage and so on until people find the free ride is over and fish are too expensive to buy.
The problem stems from viewing it as communally owned by everyone equally. It's not. Various people have various interests in the stock of fish in the lake, primarily those who actively fish or those those who live near the lake and rent campsites to people etc.
Ownership of the lake isn't equally distributed to people in Iran. The health of the lake is of immediate interest to those who use it and people use it to various extents.
Selling fishing permits and returning the proceeds from it to owners proportional to their vested interests in the lake would seem a good way to handle it but where we part company is when it comes down to who has such vested interests and to what extent those interests are. Obviously people who regularly used the lake for fishing have a larger interest than someone living across the state who's never even visited a lake.
So though I agree to some common aspects of ownership in various natural resources, I disagree that all ownership must be equal and I also disagree on an absolute black/white view of common/private ownership. For example a public street is almost entirely a public interest with common ownership (unless roads were privatized), an individual living next to the road might have some private concerns over how the road looks or noise levels etc. but generally concerns over the public roads are common to a large area. Someones house is not in anyway publicly owned though and others don't have any common interests in it. I'd say 95%+ of private landowners aren't making any large enough claims on land to warrant any large measure of common ownership. There are cases where a lot of people might have a large interest in some property (for example to build a road through an area) but those are the exceptions, not the rules and there's no inherent need to have people pay any significant tax on land. If the public has an interest in some land, why not just buy it from the owner? There's nothing novel to that idea. They are gaining something at the expense of the owner and should be willing to pay for it, not just steal it through a land tax system.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 08, 2004, 03:15:15 pm by SteveA »
|
Logged
|
"Fruitless, born a thousand times, lies barren. Unguided inspiration, yields random motion, circumscribed in destination, going nowhere. Guidance uninspired, always true in facing, stands immobile. But fixed upon that destination firmly and with inspiration lofted; beget your dreams."
|
|
|
|
Greenbacks
|
Here's few litmus tests for ownership:
Can someone freely give their property to someone else? (No, the person receiving would be obligated to pay more rent under your scheme)
Can people be kicked off their land? Not if it's privately owned but yes under your land value tax.
yes, freely give or sell with the same obligations enforced. no, simply place a lien on the property collected at transfer. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SteveA
|
I was just saying that government would need to mediate disputes over the common aspects of the lake, like overfishing or water use but those common aspects I don't believe apply to everyone else in the world why do you continue with your hyperbole? WORLD? I said the STATE of NH holds the water and fish within them in public trust - not the world. But your views don't seem limited in their applicability. You don't recognize local ownership of resources so there's no reason why your views wouldn't apply similar equal ownership to the world, if implemented on that scale. Why would people in Iran have any vested interest in that lake? Someday there's a minute probability one of them might visit? Why should the people who fish on the lake owe people in Iran for depleting a stock of fish they never even use? Here's few litmus tests for ownership:
Can someone freely give their property to someone else? (No, the person receiving would be obligated to pay more rent under your scheme) yes, freely give or sell with the same obligations enforced. But they can't gift it. (I used "freely give" whereas I meant gift) Just the way that I can't give an apartment I don't own to someone else. I can only move out and they can only rent it too. There's a subtle difference that many people seem to miss when it comes to "owning" a home or "making payments on" a home. One version is owned by a bank with someone left obligated to make payments or lose it. That's also the view Bush has of ownership so if the both of you agree, it must be true right? Can people be kicked off their land? Not if it's privately owned but yes under your land value tax. no, simply place a lien on the property collected at transfer. Well this great then. Someone can live on the land, never pay taxes and never get kicked off and the lien will be so huge that noone would ever even attempt to buy the land. Why even bother having the tax in the first place then? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 08, 2004, 03:25:13 pm by SteveA »
|
Logged
|
"Fruitless, born a thousand times, lies barren. Unguided inspiration, yields random motion, circumscribed in destination, going nowhere. Guidance uninspired, always true in facing, stands immobile. But fixed upon that destination firmly and with inspiration lofted; beget your dreams."
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
