Today those in proximity being excluded from a particular location are subject to paying it. But it only needs to be closely approximated via an appraisal of the market value for the purpose of requiring it to be shared to uphold the absolute right of self-ownership. It doesn’t have to be exact.
If it is not exact, then it is arbitrary. Georgism is just a form of tyranny. There is no proof for the existence of land rent.
It is exact for those being excluded who are being subject to it. It is the appraised market value when the landowner is required to share it. Those being excluded do not require it to be exact. An approximation is fine.
It is no more arbitrary than the requirement to “mix one’s labor” with land to claim exclusive use. Exactly how much labor is required?
Any transformation upon scarce resources that expresses an intent to use that resource in the future is a claim to exclusive use, that is to say private property. That is objective because it does not create conflict to transform resources that no one is using, but it creates conflict to transform resources that someone is already using. This ethic is universally valid, in that everyone can agree that they wish to be protected by it.
There is no proof for the existence of land rent.
I’m a bit confused Niccolo. Everything you say about a miniarchist state applies now, also. So if you’re going to shoot it out with the taxcollector, how come I don’t see you on the evening news?
I am an anarchist, and I agree with you that forming a state is wrong - precisely because it is aggression to prohibit other PDAs from competing with you. But I don’t follow the tough talk, it seems to contradict the fact that you’re alive.
Economic rent is a naturally occurring economic phenomena that is the result of two or more people competing for scarce resources in an inelastic market.
But that is not land rent.
Exclusive use of a resource that is synonomous with life itself (to “be” alive as a human is to occupy a specific location at any point in time) in an inelastic, scarcity market creates an obligation on those you exclude which compels them to labor in exchange for nothing that is produced via human labor. Simple logic dictates that this violates their absolute right of self-ownership.
If you start out with the premise that everything that pre-exists human labor is an individual, equal access opportunity right (in common) as Locke believed then you come to a completely different conclusion about the existence of economic rent and our individual equal liberty claim within a distributive justice framework.
Either admit to the logic of my claim to share economic rent as an obligation of exclusive use or change the fundamental tenet of libertarianism.
Well then what in your mind is “land rent” if not “economic rent”?
This is your first definition of economic rent: “Economic Rent: Any excess that a factor earns over the minimum amount needed to keep that factor in its present use.”
That is already different, and both are nonsensical, so I will provide the classical definition of land rent. Land rent is what accrued to land owners from having exclusive control over a strictly limited resource. This is like the rent one earns on a taxi license. Because there is a strict limit to how much land exists, stealing this land can allow the landowners to earn a rent in exchange for doing no productive work at all.
In reality however land is not a strictly limited resource like a taxi license, it is a capital good like any other. Land is produced through investments in prospection and investments in irrigation and farming. It follows that whenever these investments have a non-zero cost, there will great landmasses that are not appropriated because it is not profitable to produce land from them, and this is the case for many parts of the world.
Because land is a capital good that must be produced through labor, it follows that there is no land rent to be earned on it. Hence, land rents do not exist. Taxing land will only reduce the production of land and increase the production of goods the market does not require.
So which is it?
A location is not “produced” via human labor - it pre-exists it. What is “discovered” was there before labor - wasn’t it?
Irrigation and farming are improved land value via labor and thus the results of those efforts plant material for consumption is capital.
“The essential feature of land is that its quantity is fixed and completely unresponsive to price.” – Paul A. Samuelson & William D. Nordhaus, Economics, 16th ed., p. 248
“Land has no production cost; it is a ‘free and nonreproducible gift of nature.’ The economy has only so much land, and that is that. Of course, within limits any parcel of land can be made more usable by clearing, drainage, and irrigation. But these are capital improvements and not changes in the amount of land itself.” [Emphasis mine] – Campbell R. McConnell & Stanley L. Brue, Economics, 14th ed., p. 604
“Land, which is the earth’s surface, is immobile. It is true that some of the substances of land are removable and topography can be changed, but still that portion of the earth’s surface always remains. The geographic location of any given parcel of land can never be changed. It is rigid and fixed.” – Wade E. Gaddy & Robert E. Hart, Real Estate Fundamentals, 4th ed., p. 9
“Remember: No one is making any more land.” – William H. Pivar, Real Estate Investing From A To Z, revised edition, p. 3
All government is force and should be stamped out. We need to be careful, however, lest we solicit help to this end from our next governors.
You demonstrate difficulty comprehending the english language.
Discovering it requires labor and investment. Before it is known to exist, land has no value and cannot earn rent. Land is produced through exploration. Taxing land will reduce the returns on land production and shrink the production of additional land.
i consider economics as form of cult. Land is reality, as well as its characteristics: fresh water, forest etc.
My point is: land should be managed by specialists - it should not be given in hands of bankers. Even if you beleive if financial concept of the world.
sorry: typo. I meant: " Even if someone believes in monetary concepts."
I consider belief in ‘specialists’ to be a form of a cult.
What on earth does economics have to do with bankers in this context?
i assume we all agree that body has to be treated with "experienced " doctor , right?
may be, even educated one?
So, why should we treat differently the body of the planet?
Isn’t it also a living organism?
But for economists the forest is hedging instrument. Only. That’s it.
Market -driven future would make ( at some point ) banks the only landlords
Lovely analogy, but it proves absolutely nothing. I take care of my body precisely because I value it and, in a sense, own it. If I do not value it, I will not care for it. In the end that is what matters.
And no, for economists it is a scarce resource, which is precisely what it is, whether you like it or not. And what do you mean by ‘market-driven future’? Some Friedmanite ‘market’ economy? Your comment on banks being landlords does not follow otherwise. Have you ever read any Austrian economics (I don’t give a damn what you think of economics in general), or political theory? If not, then what is the point of your comment? To justify technocratic totalitarianism?
What would prevent the ganging up of individuals to impose tyranny of the majority in anarchism? Why isn’t it be beneficial to render forth part of one’s property for the protection of the rest?