About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, December 4, 2006 - 8:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've been debating one fellow on another forum for about a year now about land ownership and the ideas related. Basically, his contention is that land is owned in common, therefore everyone must pay an 'economic rent' to cover the cost of excluding other people. My take is that common ownership of land implies no one can own land at all and that because a person must exert some force to keep a parcel of land for any purpose has already setup the necessary components to achieve ownership of it [if you follow Locke's labor theory of ownership or simply just the idea that who's first gets the dibs].

As much as I love debating the guy, I'm bit a confused by his jargon, I've search most to the Mutualist and other Geo-Lib/Georgist orientated websites for basic primers, but none of them seem to truly fulfill what I need for a refutation of land ownership and the need for economic rent.

Ultimately, I'm simply unable to accept Georgism/GeoLibertarianism just because of the plead to inherent rights. If you can straighten me either way, I would love to read it.

-- Bridget


Post 1

Monday, December 4, 2006 - 8:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I remember a guy here saying the same thing I have heard of this idea.  I did not like it at all.  I know there are some serious problems with it.  I can't give you more right now but I will see what I can come up with.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Monday, December 4, 2006 - 11:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bridget, there is a pdf file available that Rothbard wrote on it.  It is probably pretty good I am going to read it but have not done so yet.

www.mises.org/rothbard/georgism.pdf


Post 3

Monday, December 4, 2006 - 12:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes - I read the article.  He rips it apart both economically as well as morally.  In fact, one of the absolute key aspects of the reason poor countries are poor is in fact the very opposite of what Georgism claims, and that is that land is NOT privately owned.  Were that so, numerous small farmers and shop keepers could build, develop, and hand down businesses - the people do not lack in productivity.  But who will do so when tomorrow the next government official will come and declare it someone else's or bulldoze your shop - something that happens regularly in Africa, for example.  The fact is, far from being an impediment, it is one of the absolute cornerstones of economic success and freedom. 

Post 4

Monday, December 4, 2006 - 1:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wouldn't eminent domain be an offshoot of Georgism?

Post 5

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 - 1:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kurt,

I remember a guy here saying the same thing ...

Wasn't that "Jordan" speaking of the "most-harmed" view of property rights championed by Ronald Coase (where the biggest companies always have the most to lose -- so THEY get to stake claim to the ownership of pretty much everyone else's property)?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/05, 1:03am)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/05, 1:04am)


Post 6

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 - 9:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
you could be right, Ed, but I don't honestly recall that

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.