Any “developing” of land by human labor creates capital not land. By definition land pre-exists human labor.
Yes. Subjecting others to economic rent is interfering with their right of self-ownership.
After land is transformed into capital via labor it can not be subject to a tax without violating the absolute right of self-ownership of the owner.
You said land, but you meant dwelling. You are talking about a person lacking a right to “stand” somewhere. But he does not have to stand on land. He could live on a house boat. He could live in an apartment. He could live in a basement.
You get to exercise your “absolute right of self-ownership” when you are able to. As soon as a child demonstrates he is able to support himself(eg earn a living and buy a place to live) then his existence no longer depends on the charity of his parents. As you probably know, even though babies are not property, they depend on others to continue living.
Really? Are you a mind reader?
A boat, an apartment, and a basement are capital - not land.
So in other words, a right of self-ownership has to be purchased?
Are you hoping this might become true by repeating it over and over? So what if land pre-exists labour, what has this to do with anything?
Not at all. It is the duty of the parents to provide a location. Once this has been done it is purely up to the individual how to make use of it.
The individual isn’t receiving their labour’s worth - they are receiving more than this. Why should it not be taxed, by Georgist logic?
No, pretty good at reading words though.
Your question, besides you trying to use it justify something completely unrelated, does not hold up because of it will never happen. Because of capital people will not need to steal LAND in order to exist, they will be able to trade for CAPITAL. Voluntary relationships makes your central planning unended. (What a suprise!)
How unfair that someone should have to work in order to exist, right? Oh wait, thats what humans have always done. A human can live in the wilderness and exploit the land to support himself(good luck) or he can rent a dwelling in a city and work for his neighbors(and have them work for him). If the entire world is urban, it simply removes his first option. But since this is not the result of a crime, only the collective choices of peaceful people, he is owed nothing. This fictional person has the same obligation as everyone else, he must find a way to support himself without infringing on others.
P.S. What about the right to exist of people unable to exist on their own? Invalids for example. Are they allowed to exist at the expense of others, that is, by stealing? Can they take land in order to provide themselves with laborless income?
Since when does the word “land” mean the word “dwelling”?
My argument is that to exist IS TO occupy land somewhere and that the vision of libertarians IS TO bring everything into a private property framework.
A right does not have to be gifted or purchased. We are born with them as humans.
It is not voluntary to occupy some location while existing. They are one in the same.
There is no “work” in order to exist. To exist is to occupy a location somewhere. There is only working to continue to exist.
I involuntarily labor to freely breathe the air to continue to exist. I labor to drink water which freely exists in nature to continue to exist. If I do not have free access to the earth then I don’t have the means to feed myself without paying atribute to someone else.
The point is that the landless are being infringed upon by having to pay economic rent to the landowners which violates their absolute right of self-ownership.
You mean like a landowner does? In the system I advocate there would be no purchase price for land.
No, because legally he has a debt to pay to those against whom he trespassed. This trespassing debt is not really different from any other debt one is obligated to pay.
Oh. I dont see how thats a problem.
Why does that not suprise me?
