Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7]   Go Down

Author Topic: what about necessary social programs  (Read 30700 times)

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #90 on: September 30, 2003, 01:03:11 pm »

>>Communistic

To some folks, anything that has to do with money or responsibility that isn't 100% self-centric is 'Communist'.  :)

>>free lunch

It's not quite a free lunch, because the same money invested in treasuries or a money market account would have earned (essentially) risk-free interest.  Also, there is the risk that the land may not appreciate in value.  So, the price of the lunch is the opportunity cost (i.e. the amount of interest income foregone) plus the risk.  

Nevertheless, it is quite unassailable that the appreciation of unimproved property is very much the unearned income derived form other peoples' improvements and public infrastructure investments.  This, along with the fact that land titles (and other such grants) are government-enforced use monopolies, provides the moral basis for property taxes (or, as they are more appropriately called resource rents).  Compared to the other forms of revenue collection used by goverment, a resource rent is one that is really a form of use fee.

RS
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

SteveA

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2905
  • Freedom - Are you man enough to handle it?
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #91 on: September 30, 2003, 01:37:50 pm »

Quote
SteveA are you going to run for political office in the Free State?

what a duck (quack) that was!

Most likely not.  I would have hard time taking a cut in pay but I frequently take extended vacations ... it's not impossible :)

Quote
So you see no difference between labor-based property and title-based property at all? Then you completely pass over the fact that site values naturally rise as populations increase or as your neighbors simply improve their own property (plus public infrastructure investment as you mention) letting your dogma get infront of intellectual honesty...

Other investments naturally rise in value and property that is being used provides additional value so that's why I kept repeating "A successful investor".  An investor will find out that unused property sitting around for a long time is not very profitable and he'll be weeded out.

Quote
what if the speculator just sells the property to another speculator who continues to underuitilize the land and sells it in 5 yrs. for 2X again without lifting a finger - is that your definition of success?

Same thing.  Think about it.  Underutilized land is underutilized.  If government restricts the free use of land then we have more likelyhood of seeing a scenario like this otherwise he will lose more money than an alternate investor who either sells the land sooner for his 2x value or an alternate investor who earns profit from the land during this 5 year wait.

You are also ingnoring the seller.  If the investor gives his assets to the seller in exchange for the property he effectively has less capital for other investments.  If the seller can make better use of the investors capital then by all means we should support the trade.  Who will end up with more capital and influence in the end?

Quote
Quote
2)  A successful investor will maintain or improve the value of such items.

this sentence suggests that someone will take action to "maintain or improve" that is not the case in my scenario. What about the scenario where the speculator just lets a building fall into complete disrepair because he knows that the land will become more valuable if the building just crumbles so no one has to tear it down to reap the benefits of a vacant lot which will fetch a higher price?

I happen to actually know quite a few people who buy houses, make improvements and resell them.  I believe you are stretching your argument a bit thin on this one.  It may cost more money to provide upkeep for a building but if noone is living there ... well you do the math.

Quote
Quote
3)  For items that have value in their continual use a successful investor will attempt to limit the time such unused property is in his possession.

Not so with a "successful" speculator. They continue to "sit" on their titled property in the hopes that it will fetch an even higher price in the future while people are living in the street because they can't afford any shelter...

In the mean time, the seller is making use of the investors capital and attempting to earn money from it as well.  At least if the investor is literally sitting on it then he has a place to sit lol :)  If a group of homeowners wanted to mandate development in an area they could join a homeowners association.

BTW, the people who are living on the street are there because they thought they could just sit on some property to get rich.

Quote
Quote
Basically, a successful investor provides efficient usage of property by assuring a good matching of this property to the customers.  It's the only way they earn money.

Not so with a "successful" speculator. The incentive is to build something that is easily torn down (like a billboard) so the next speculator can sit on the property and do nothing as the value rises...I think this is commonly called a "free lunch" - no?

Now you've totally lost me.  It would seem that at least leaving the billboard up would provide some additional income.  You are trying to deny what a free market does.  If such were the case then people would already be offering a higher price for property because of this supposed super-inflationary character of unused property values.  Such an increase in property prices would only occur to the point at which investment in other manners provided a greater gain so the investor would only be able to continually sustain such transactions if he had enough forsight in property values (or governmental insight) to predict their future values.  This is what my reference to fair market value was.  The seller needs capital for other uses and the investor performs his "work" by assuring a market.

I agree that if people spent less time trying to suck every last penny out of a transaction we'd all be better off but trade and marketing are legitimate issues and someone providing those services in a fair competitive environment should be allowed those profits.

Quote
Quote
Additional factors that affect the speculator in real life are zoning, property taxes, tax laws and loop-holes, building codes and low incoming subsidies (which affect desirability of land), loan overhead, paperwork, supply of fiat money etc.  These can affect the value of property in an almost whimsical fashion and can give advantages to those who have the right influencial friends.

why no mention of populations increasing because speculators know that they aren't building anymore land!

What about the stock market?  What about the failed and struggling real estate investors.  Yes real estate can be a good investment but so can other sources.  The fact that we are currently experiencing a (IMO) overpriced market in CA due to immigration pressures and low-income housing doesn't mean that everyone is going to end up rich.  Did you read about the tulip bulb craze?

Quote
Quote
Now you will argue that just because a buyer provides a high offer to buy an object doesn't mean it will be utilized more efficiently.  That is somewhat true though true though the object could be considered a luxury item for someone rich and is used as an incentive to encourage their continued work in whatever made them rich in the first place.  Why work if you can't buy something just because you enjoy it?  That's the problem with communism.

I could care less if it labor-based property we are talking about whcih we can create more of by definition right?...but instead I am talking about access to the natural world by which we provide sustenance for our very EXISTENCE. Without a place to make a home or a living are we not just wage slaves (taxes) to the landholders (government) as we hand over the fruits of our labor simply to get access?

Honestly - would you not feel outraged if we were talking about the same subject as it relates to the air that we breath or is that a "communistic" statement that I just uttered?

You can create useful land too with labor.  People have labored to obtain property rights for the land they possess.  Such reward for their labor should be upheld or what is the point of working if property rights can change on a regular basis.  You can also go create livable land.  You can build houses, purify saltwater, make a greenhouse in a desert, grow lumber etc. etc. etc.

Land has little inherent value other than its desirability by people.  Such desirability can be created.  Look at Vegas.  If you build a road, they will come.  Go build something :)
« Last Edit: September 30, 2003, 01:42:17 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."

SteveA

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2905
  • Freedom - Are you man enough to handle it?
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #92 on: September 30, 2003, 02:19:32 pm »

Something else to consider:

If a buyer was willing to pay 2x the value of the property in 5 years then the property was initially undervalued wasn't it?  The investor did a service by sacraficing his capital temporarily knowing that a buyer would need that property in the future and held that property to match it with someone who would be able to realize the true value of it.  The seller is happy because he got a fair price.  The investor is happy because he made a profit and the buyer is happy to find a free slot in the area he/she desired to live.  But to be truly a successful investor I believe you'd have to do better than this - for example, build the property the expected buyer will want and rent this property out so I would say that sitting on property or destroying would be less productive and demostrated as such in lost assets and the inability to try such experiments in the future.

Also, if someone had wanted to live on the land or had some better use than just sitting on it they would have offered more so the investors offer would have been rejected.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2003, 03:19:45 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."

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #93 on: October 01, 2003, 11:12:40 am »

If land speculation was so profitable (more than anything else as you propose) and so 'easy' then why isn't everyone in on the deal?  If everyone participated (which they are not precluded from doing) then the effect would be the same as your Georgian System but without government - that is the real problem, any government involvement/enforcement.... it can be done in the free market!

michael
Logged
nothing to say...

skw

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
  • Friend of the FSP
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #94 on: October 11, 2003, 09:45:16 am »


it is quite obvious that the FS will quickly evolve into "mini-kibbutzs"; extending out the *collective* concept I read of elsewhere on the site.   everything from farmer co-ops to uberGeek singularities.  
has anyone noticed how varied the attitudes and views of ppl in these forums are with only a few thousand involved?   balance needs to be addressed from the get-go -- otherwise is could be like a poorly planned potluck where everyone brings desert.   -_-

Would you rather go to a potluck where everyone brought desert, or one where the government told you what dish you had to bring?

One meal of desert-only isn't going to kill anyone, and then we would get it figured out better for next time.
Logged

rowso

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #95 on: October 12, 2003, 05:17:53 pm »

can you define what a necessary social program is? I can't think of any social programs that are needed for society to function.
Logged

ProteusLizz

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
  • imma whaaa????
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #96 on: October 28, 2003, 09:05:30 pm »

Hiyas......first off, yessss I am a newbie here  :) Just a quick background summary of myself.  I grew up with girls where it was their goal to get out of high school as early as possible by getting pregnant and having as many babies as tahey could, because at this time you still were paid more money depending on the amount of children you kept having.  I also turned my own cousin in for fraudding the welfare system.  I do not agree with it and do not support it.  Now the reason I really decided to reply to this thread.

The ORIGINAL question was regarding "neccessary social programs", wow what a rant some of youse went on ;-)  Anyway....the term "neccessary" in MY meager opinion would be what the children of all generations since the 30's have been accustomed to.  Welfare has been in the United States for so long that it has become "neccessary" in the eyes of some.  :::::thinking to self, boy are they gonna slam me in here:::::  In the 30's it was neccessary to achieve financial and political balance....so the great minds thought up WELFARE.  I'm sure they didn't foresee this program still maintained in the next millennium.    Lets look at unemployment insurance....I know I have used this myself and at that time was thankful for it BUT it was NOT a way of life....it was a temporary bandaid.  Again in my meager opinion....I think that is how most of these "neccessary social programs" came into being, just for a bandaid Not for a new layer of skin.  

Now.........as I see it, the FSP is giving us a chance to correct or improve on the erors made by people before us.  This is not a time to argue, have a battle of wits, or just out right putting others down.  This is a time for us to communicate IDEAS on how to IMPROVE what is wrong.  This is our chance to try and be civilized persons and maturely and rationally discuss the issues that people are concerned with.  This is a new State where NO ONE has the expereince of running it.  We all have our ideals of perfect or right and wrong but we should also have the respect for all.
Logged
I love my country but fear my government-a bumper sticker :)

SteveA

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2905
  • Freedom - Are you man enough to handle it?
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #97 on: October 28, 2003, 10:30:37 pm »

If any social programs are needed, it would be for unforeseen and unexpected bad luck.  Either "Acts of God" or down on their luck situtations might be justified but noone continually has bad luck for 5 years, and if they did, how long can we afford to hold this luck at bay?  Maybe nature is saying something we aren't listening too?

Quote
I grew up with girls where it was their goal to get out of high school as early as possible by getting pregnant and having as many babies as tahey could, because at this time you still were paid more money depending on the amount of children you kept having.

My mother fell victim to this too, though she couldn't take care of the children.  The state typically sided with the mother on custody issues and half my brothers and sisters were bounced around between my mother and her relatives, though the entire time my father was raising the eldest of us just fine and trying to get custody of the younger children.  After about 10 years, my mothers side of the family realized what had been going on and apologized to my father but at that point he owed tons of child support, had paid for countless lawyers etc. and basically gave up.  He's very quiet now, and though he loves us, I think he's had enough of the legal marriage system and rarely sees any of the family.  20 years after this all started my mother began apologizing as well and wishing to get back together but he's not listening anymore.  Oh, and the IRS stuck him for a bill on a car lot 4 states away that he never owned.  How's that for justice?  IRS = police, judge, jury, executioner and collection officer.  Where's the balance of power in that system?

I could go on, but the currently our system is so prone to abuse it's literally pitiful.  A guy here at work was telling me knew someone who immigrated here and set up a scam to collect 8 welfare checks!

What about necessary social programs?  I like rowsos post:

Quote
can you define what a necessary social program is? I can't think of any social programs that are needed for society to function.

Ditto me a copy.
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."

ProteusLizz

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
  • imma whaaa????
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #98 on: October 28, 2003, 10:42:30 pm »

noone continually has bad luck for 5 years, and if they did, how long can we afford to hold this luck at bay?  Maybe nature is saying something we aren't listening too?



I agree.....just as a bandaid...nothing perm :)  uuum....I think its saying survival of the fittest???
Logged
I love my country but fear my government-a bumper sticker :)

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #99 on: October 29, 2003, 01:38:11 am »

If any social programs are needed, it would be for unforeseen and unexpected bad luck.  Either "Acts of God" or down on their luck situtations might be justified but noone continually has bad luck for 5 years, and if they did, how long can we afford to hold this luck at bay?  Maybe nature is saying something we aren't listening too?

Acts of God and other catastrophies can (and have been in the past) be easily taken care of through private means (Social Clubs like Odd Fellows, Elks, Shriners - these few remaining and the many others that have been replaced by the government).  These clubs provide 'social self-insurance' and helped out fellow members in times of desperation.  They were very successful AND had many side benefits which a governmental program doesn't have: accountability, built-in 'means testing', less fraud/abuse, etc etc.

no social programs by coercive force (read:government)


michael
Logged
nothing to say...

SteveA

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2905
  • Freedom - Are you man enough to handle it?
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #100 on: October 29, 2003, 03:04:13 am »

Quote
I agree.....just as a bandaid...nothing perm   uuum....I think its saying survival of the fittest???

Yes, the easiest rule of thumb for government is no permanent social services.  I'm not saying survival of the fittest but it's true that everything has a cost, and for every bandaid given, someone else loses one.  Who are we sacrificing while doing this?  If the wound won't heal, is there someone else that can use a bandaid to better benefit?  Government has been known to be unselective in the past ...

It may sound cruel but it's not.  It's just facing the reality that stuff (or any other suitable word) happens and we have to deal with it as best as we can.  Helping get someone on their feet is different than pulling them in a wagon so they can get their beauty sleep.  In the end, even if it's purely out of compassion, giving too much without expecting any effort in return can be addictive to the recipient and detrimental to both parties.

We currently often have an attitude of "The government will take care of it." and place people that need help in the "care" of it.  Is this the pinnacle of social achievement?  We can do much better than that.

Many marriages have been broken because governmental 'assistance' removes the advantages of staying together and like Michael stated, social organizations that existed before have been destroyed by governments forceful monopoly.

We don't truly need government social programs.  It may take time for people to relearn what a community should be but the longer we expect government to take care of our own responsibilities, the longer it will take to recover our sense of humanity.  It may be that social programs breed, not compassion, but carelessness (or callousness).  Some of our prominent capitalists were philanthropists as well.  Could it be that the concept of charity and the pride in helping others has been corrupted into a tool manipulated to create indebtedness to the government, the true symbol of human compassion?

Well, I'll stop there, but I think there's a lot of mental conditioning that's been going on.  Time to rethink common assumptions and find which have underlying truths.
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."

ProteusLizz

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
  • imma whaaa????
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #101 on: October 29, 2003, 07:11:36 pm »

Steve....

You say it so eloquently......I agree with everything u have said.....alot of people WILL need to re-condition themselves for this type of movement.  Unfortunately the government has made us sheep for the slaughter (just a term i use in my old newsletter).  I may say ( or type) extreme words at times but I grew up on the streets ( so to say) where extreme was the only way to survive.  I am very passionate when it comes to Liberty and Freedom.....I WILL NOT LET ANYONE STAND IN MY WAY :)  I am very happy to have found this and can't wait till I move :)  Peace..Lizz
Logged
I love my country but fear my government-a bumper sticker :)

SteveA

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2905
  • Freedom - Are you man enough to handle it?
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #102 on: October 29, 2003, 07:34:25 pm »

Quote
alot of people WILL need to re-condition themselves for this type of movement.  Unfortunately the government has made us sheep for the slaughter (just a term i use in my old newsletter).  I may say ( or type) extreme words at times but I grew up on the streets ( so to say) where extreme was the only way to survive.

Actually, I like the way you said it and am hoping more people will start seeing the reality of what we're doing.  I'm preaching to the choir here but there will never be a better time for spreading the word and working on a gameplan.

Quote
I am very passionate when it comes to Liberty and Freedom.....I WILL NOT LET ANYONE STAND IN MY WAY   I am very happy to have found this and can't wait till I move   Peace..Lizz

Well, we're glad to have you with us.  I've been feeling a lot of this too.  We'll see what happens but if even 1 out every hundred people out there truly wanted more freedom in life and knew how to get it, we'd succeed.  It's just showing them the value of freedom and convincing people they have options.  Have fun ProteusLizz.

Peace..Steve :)
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 ... 4 5 6 [7]   Go Up
 

anything