And how much of that land would be economically viable to hold if the government couldn’t tax?
Well by definition feudal land arrangements were created by the state, so perhaps it’s a poor choice of words by me. The correct term is manoralism.
But other than that I don’t see what your point is, other than distracting from the fact that the fed does bring land prices up.
No, you’ve been putting words in my mouth.
Yes and? The government has been making easy money available to anybody who wants to buy a house (and in this case, the land it’s on).
Yes and what do you think that does to the price of land?
The state also destroys the incentives to rent. People (Juan and BP) seem to be focusing on the more minor points of my argument whilst ignoring the bigger picture.
What ??
Yes, the fed does bring land prices up. You probably meant down…? Never mind, thanks to that typo, at least this time you got it right.
I don’t need to.
Yes, you’re correct. The fed does bring housing prices up, so what? It also allows people to own land they never would have otherwise. Moreover, there’s a number of other factors pushing land prices down. The bottom line is that I was wrong in saying that land prices will go up, that doesn’t mean they will go down, just, we can’t know.
The fact of the matter is that you’re nit picking on whatever you can to take the argument off on a tangent ignoring the main point. So far you’re been unable to provide a single incentive for people to own land that can stand criticism. I have, on the other, listed numerous factors that would incentivise people to rent land.
Go back and read previous posts – I already addressed all your fallacies. Stop lying (to yourself).
Then it won’t be a problem for you to do it again. Now, what are the incentives for people to own land?
There’s no point in re-writing what I already wrote.
Find then stop boldly proclaiming victory.
Why ? You are wrong and already showed it.
Simple, Freedom. It ALWAYS goes back to this simple concept.
As a renter, I must sign a binding agreement. This implies that I agree and submit to said contract willingly and arguably happily. If instead I am the owner of said property, I have no one to contract with other than myself. Therefore the incentive, is to not have to agree to anyone elses rules - however lenient they may be.
Even if it was the best contract in the world, I personally and I think most others would rather OWN the land because at some time in the near or far future I may want to do something which, prior to signing the agreement I may have not wanted to do which was prohibited - as a random example: building a shooting range (which may interefere with contractual noise mitigation).
The entire idea of owning rather than renting is the idea of autonomy and independence. That is the incentive. That is what we are debating and writing about and fighting for. That is my incentive for life.
No, I haven’t.
Here’s an interesting note. It comes from Hoppe’s Socialism & Capitalism :
Regarding large-scale ownership, in particular of land, Mises observes that it is normally only brought about and upheld by nonmarket forces: by coercive violence and a state-enforced legal system outlawing or hampering the selling of land. “Nowhere and at no time has the large scale ownership of land come into being through the working of economic forces in the market. Founded by violence, it has been upheld by violence and that alone. As soon as the latifundia are drawn into the sphere of market transactions they begin to crumble, until at last they disappear completely . . . . That in a market economy it is difficult even now to uphold the latifundia, is shown by the endeavors to create legislation institutions like the ‘Fideikommiss’ and related legal institutions such as the English ‘entail’ . . . . Never was the ownership of the means of production more closely concentrated than at the time of Pliny, when half the province of Africa was owned by six people, or in the day of the Merovingian, when the church possessed the greater part of all French soil. And in no part of the world is there less large-scale land ownership than in capitalist North America,” Socialism, Indianapolis, 1981, pp.325326.
The centralization of ownership characteristic of feudalism is only sustainable with primogeniture, entail, and mortmain laws which are inherently antithetical to Lockean property rights, which are held by the individual and the living: not by the collective and the dead.
Wonderful, now, prove it. Juan seems to be unable to do so, perhaps you might?
So what? Previously it has been enforced by violence, so what? Malls manage to thrive without violence, there’s no reason that communities wouldn’t be able to do the same.
Large-scale ownership without homesteading? It’s not compatible with libertarianism, and as Hoppe and Mises note, is currently facilitated by the state and is not what they’d support in its absence.
Indirectly homesteaded in the sense of voluntary exchange. Is it that difficult to imagine corporations suited to this type of enterprise?
No, but that isn’t what the quote was referring to anyway.
But that’s what I’m referring to, in which case the quote was off topic and not relevant anyway.
But that’s what I’m referring to, in which case the quote was off topic and not relevant anyway.