Fair Tax and black markets

[Topazan]

Ok, so what was your question again?

[1714747455]

1714747455

[1714747455]

1714747455

[1714747455]

1714747455

[myrkul]

Ok, so what was your question again?

Wait, so the stakes, the physical effort, don't matter, but the paperwork, that's what really matters? Well, I could just claim land willy-nilly, if all I had to do was fill out the paperwork. That's just like running that script to claim all the domain names.

You would require a financial commitment, plus that paperwork, to claim land.

I would require a physical effort, plus maybe that paperwork, to claim land.

Now, which of those would be more fair to the poor and homeless looking to get a home?

[Topazan]

Homesteading is a better deal for the first generation of people to settle in an area.  After that, they'll snatch up all the land, and the next generation will have to pay them rent.  The first generation will grow richer and richer, both from rent and from rising land value from whatever the second generation does to improve the community.  The first generation will be a permanent upperclass, and every generation after will be denied the same opportunities they had, and can only hope to get good jobs working their land.

Even though this country is so much richer than it used to be, the opportunity it offers for new arrivals has shrunk considerably.  This is because the first generation has taken everything from the commons, and left future arrivals with nothing.

With geoism, the first generation won't take anything from the commons without compensation.  This means they won't take as much in the first place, so by the time the next generation comes around, there will still be some left to take without artificial scarcity.  Wealth will be in the hands of people who earned it through production, not simply for being first.  New arrivals have the potential to benefit from public spending*.  They would have about as much opportunity as the first generation did.  I'd say most people would find the conditions more "fair" here, since you ask.

*I know that the idea of paying into the commons is a concept that begs further scrutiny.  Like I said, I'm still developing my ideas, so I don't really have a solid idea of how the public purse could fairly compensate everyone for the lost opportunities.

[myrkul]

With geoism, the first generation won't take anything from the commons without compensation.  This means they won't take as much in the first place, so by the time the next generation comes around, there will still be some left to take without artificial scarcity.  Wealth will be in the hands of people who earned it through production, not simply for being first.  New arrivals have the potential to benefit from public spending*.  They would have about as much opportunity as the first generation did.  I'd say most people would find the conditions more "fair" here, since you ask.

*I know that the idea of paying into the commons is a concept that begs further scrutiny.  Like I said, I'm still developing my ideas, so I don't really have a solid idea of how the public purse could fairly compensate everyone for the lost opportunities.

You have to answer one very important question: To whom is the compensation being paid? "The commons" is not a thing. Someone will be entrusted with the the responsibility of holding, and more importantly, dispensing, that money. Who that person is is a very important decision, and it opens a huge can of worms, which you need to deal with before you support a method of ensuring "fairness" in land ownership.

Your characterization of first and second generation of settlers is over-generalized, and fails to take into account a lot of factors. The skill or wisdom (or lack thereof) in the first generation's management of the land, the ability of the second generation, or indeed any subsequent generation, to purchase land, and environmental factors, among many other things.

Being first is important, but it is not sufficient, in itself, to ensure that the land owner is rich and prosperous, or even better off than a later arrival.

[Topazan]

With geoism, the first generation won't take anything from the commons without compensation.  This means they won't take as much in the first place, so by the time the next generation comes around, there will still be some left to take without artificial scarcity.  Wealth will be in the hands of people who earned it through production, not simply for being first.  New arrivals have the potential to benefit from public spending*.  They would have about as much opportunity as the first generation did.  I'd say most people would find the conditions more "fair" here, since you ask.

*I know that the idea of paying into the commons is a concept that begs further scrutiny.  Like I said, I'm still developing my ideas, so I don't really have a solid idea of how the public purse could fairly compensate everyone for the lost opportunities.

You have to answer one very important question: To whom is the compensation being paid? "The commons" is not a thing. Someone will be entrusted with the the responsibility of holding, and more importantly, dispensing, that money. Who that person is is a very important decision, and it opens a huge can of worms, which you need to deal with before you support a method of ensuring "fairness" in land ownership.

Your characterization of first and second generation of settlers is over-generalized, and fails to take into account a lot of factors. The skill or wisdom (or lack thereof) in the first generation's management of the land, the ability of the second generation, or indeed any subsequent generation, to purchase land, and environmental factors, among many other things.

Being first is important, but it is not sufficient, in itself, to ensure that the land owner is rich and prosperous, or even better off than a later arrival.

What you say re: the commons is a fair criticism, which I acknowledged in the previous post.  I don't have an answer for that at this time.

The question is, why should being first be important at all?  Another problem is similar to one I brought up very early in the thread.  How do you know whether or not a claim made centuries ago is legitimate, and what do you do if it's not?

[myrkul]

The question is, why should being first be important at all?  Another problem is similar to one I brought up very early in the thread.  How do you know whether or not a claim made centuries ago is legitimate, and what do you do if it's not?

It can be equated to the early adopter "problem" with Bitcoin. There are people, who simply by virtue of being early to the party, have a large supply of a suddenly very valuable commodity. Is this necessarily a bad thing? They recognized a sound investment, and bought in early. Yet, there are people from that group, who now have little or no bitcoins. What happened? They managed their investment poorly, and now someone else, who can better manage that investment, has it. Some of those people who have those bitcoins now are new to the community. If they manage that investment poorly, it will go to someone else, as well.

As to how to recognize a false claim made centuries ago, that will require significant amounts of investigation, and what to do with it will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Too many people think that you can make a law that will fit every case. That's simply not possible. In one instance, it might be best to give the land to the new claimant. In another, the centuries-old claim might be the one you should honor, regardless of it's legitimacy. If someone tells you they have the answer to everything, they're either very stupid, or think you are.

[Fjordbit]

I'm an anarchogeolibertarian and I can answer this from that perspective.

Let's be clear about the deal here, there's no "homesteading" in the ancap sense. If you want exclusive right to a piece of land, then you need to bid the rent for it. If someone comes along later and outbids you, then they get the exclusive right to that land. You don't just get to keep land because you were there first, it goes to the highest bidder.

If you make improvements to the land, the improvements are morally yours. However, if you lose rights to the land then either the new rights holder will pay to move them to the closest area with the same previous rent, or more likely they will buy the improvements from you.

As an example, you bid for a piece of land and win it. Then you build a house. You decide to move, so you put the house up for sale, and enter into a contract with someone for them to buy it. They give you the money and take over the moral rights to the house, and start paying the same rent as you on the land.

Or, you bid for a piece of land and win it. then you build a house. A company knows there are natural gas reserves on your property, so they bid on the land. You try to bid higher, but they bid even more, so you lose rights to the land. They don't want the house, so they offer to move it. The land in the whole area is being bid up because of the natural gas, but one county over there is some land with a similar rent amount. You go through a few bid cycles and get a place for the same rent. The company moves your home there.

Now that this is clear, let's go to the question: what if you are both paying rent on the land through some mistake in the system? well, it goes to the last person who engaged in a bidding process properly and won with the highest rent. So if I had some land that I bid on previously and you came along and just started paying rent on it, this wouldn't count for anything because you didn't open up bidding process. As far as the money, I'm inclined to say that it's your fault for not bidding properly.

As far as who "the commons" are, in minarchist systems, this is a small government, but in geoanarchism this is paid in equal parts to whomever asks for it. Potentially this could be paid to every person on earth, and this would really be my preference, but for practical reasons, this is simply whoever says "I want a slice of that" gets their slice. I can see something like Bitcoin excelling here, but Bitcoin itself has protocol limits that make it unusable for large distribution micropayments.

This last part is important because for me to respect your exclusive right to your land, I need to get some portion of your rent. By accepting your rent, I'm also accepting your exclusive right to that land. By paying your rent, you are compensating me for the loss of use of your land. By bidding the rent, it assures that the land is being used to the highest utility for society instead of being sat on by "homesteaders."

[myrkul]

Let's be clear about the deal here, there's no "homesteading" in the ancap sense. If you want exclusive right to a piece of land, then you need to bid the rent for it. If someone comes along later and outbids you, then they get the exclusive right to that land. You don't just get to keep land because you were there first, it goes to the highest bidder.

And so the poor are forced to live on someone else's land? A family who lived there for generations gets shoved off their land because some monied asshole payed someone else more than they can?

You want to explain how that is fair? How that prevents a ruling class? How that, in fact, does anything but establish a ruling class?

[Topazan]

It can be equated to the early adopter "problem" with Bitcoin. There are people, who simply by virtue of being early to the party, have a large supply of a suddenly very valuable commodity. Is this necessarily a bad thing? They recognized a sound investment, and bought in early. Yet, there are people from that group, who now have little or no bitcoins. What happened? They managed their investment poorly, and now someone else, who can better manage that investment, has it. Some of those people who have those bitcoins now are new to the community. If they manage that investment poorly, it will go to someone else, as well.

True, there are some parallels, but I think the fact that bitcoin is made by human labor, and the process of acquiring it, whether by mining, buying, or business, adds value to the whole thing, changes the dynamic somewhat.

As to the issue of old claims, let's say for example, it comes to light that my house is on land I bought from someone who's great-grandfather murdered someone for it.  The guy who was murdered had no descendents.  Can I keep the house?  If not, who do I give it to?

Let's be clear about the deal here, there's no "homesteading" in the ancap sense. If you want exclusive right to a piece of land, then you need to bid the rent for it. If someone comes along later and outbids you, then they get the exclusive right to that land. You don't just get to keep land because you were there first, it goes to the highest bidder.

If you make improvements to the land, the improvements are morally yours. However, if you lose rights to the land then either the new rights holder will pay to move them to the closest area with the same previous rent, or more likely they will buy the improvements from you.

Ok, I have some problems with this interpretation.  While awarding the land to the highest bidder is a nice way to solve the problem of how to determine the rent rate, it offers no stability.  A rich person could bully a poor person by bidding them out of their house every so often.  

Moving improvements?  How are you going to move the Empire State Building, or the Hoover Dam, or the Taj Mahal visitor's center?  How are you going to move an orchard without causing considerable damage to the trees in the process?  How are you going to move a section of the tracks of a major railroad?

My interpretation was that by renting land at a rate (somehow) determined by the community, you gain the exclusive right of sale.  That's how you keep the value of your improvements, by selling the right to rent the land when you're done.  A highest bidder system robs you of that, and saying they'll move your improvements has some serious practical issues.

[myrkul]

It can be equated to the early adopter "problem" with Bitcoin. There are people, who simply by virtue of being early to the party, have a large supply of a suddenly very valuable commodity. Is this necessarily a bad thing? They recognized a sound investment, and bought in early. Yet, there are people from that group, who now have little or no bitcoins. What happened? They managed their investment poorly, and now someone else, who can better manage that investment, has it. Some of those people who have those bitcoins now are new to the community. If they manage that investment poorly, it will go to someone else, as well.

True, there are some parallels, but I think the fact that bitcoin is made by human labor, and the process of acquiring it, whether by mining, buying, or business, adds value to the whole thing, changes the dynamic somewhat.

No, don't you see? That's the point of requiring that you put labor into the land to acquire it. The land itself is not made by human labor, but the process of "mixing your labor with the land" makes the end product a product of human labor.

As to the issue of old claims, let's say for example, it comes to light that my house is on land I bought from someone who's great-grandfather murdered someone for it.  The guy who was murdered had no descendents.  Can I keep the house?  If not, who do I give it to?

Well, I would say it's a case of good faith, in this instance. You bought the land in good faith, from someone who in all likelihood did not know his ancestor had committed murder for the house. Since there are no better claimants, you would be able to keep the land.

[Fjordbit]

And so the poor are forced to live on someone else's land? A family who lived there for generations gets shoved off their land because some monied asshole payed someone else more than they can?

You want to explain how that is fair? How that prevents a ruling class? How that, in fact, does anything but establish a ruling class?

The poor aren't forced to live on someone else's land. They can bid for land just like everyone else. The poor will end up with land that has less utility to society, which is how it should be. It doesn't make sense to have a poor person sitting on top of a copper mine that they can't develop when society desires that copper.

Also, don't forget that the poor person directly derives rent from the person taking their land, and all the other land in the area if not the world. The concept of poverty is not anything like the concept of poverty now. Up to the point of over population, the poor will always be able to find somewhere to live.

I doesn't make sense that people happened to have ancestors who came here before anyone else and put a flag in the ground gives them some kind of overriding moral exclusionary right to land. You want to explain to me how that is fair? Empirically speaking, it has established a ruling class.

The most important point here is that the natural resources are not created by anyone so it makes no sense to say they are exclusively owned by anyone.

Ok, I have some problems with this interpretation.  While awarding the land to the highest bidder is a nice way to solve the problem of how to determine the rent rate, it offers no stability.  A rich person could bully a poor person by bidding them out of their house every so often. 

Yes a rich person could outbid a poor person off their property, but that rich person is now morally responsible to move the poor person to a place of equal rent. This costs the rich person money and thus acts as a disincentive. And the rich person needs to pay rent on the property and this is a net benefit to society including the poor person.

I take exception to the term bullying. If the rich person wants to have exclusive right to that land, then they should have it. They have as much claim as anyone.

Moving improvements?  How are you going to move the Empire State Building, or the Hoover Dam, or the Taj Mahal visitor's center?  How are you going to move an orchard without causing considerable damage to the trees in the process?  How are you going to move a section of the tracks of a major railroad?

I don't really care how you move it: the key part is that you have the moral responsibility to do so and in failing to do so you don't get exclusionary right to the land nor access to the improvement. As a result, if someone were bidding on, say the Empire State Building, they would really only do it if they were also going to purchase the improvements from the current tenant. People buy and sell buildings all the time, it's not a stretch.

My interpretation was that by renting land at a rate (somehow) determined by the community, you gain the exclusive right of sale.  That's how you keep the value of your improvements, by selling the right to rent the land when you're done.  A highest bidder system robs you of that, and saying they'll move your improvements has some serious practical issues.

That's the difference between Georgism and anarchogeolibertarianism. In your system, you have a community rule (a minimal government) that determines rent and enforces right of sale. In my voluntary system, the free market is used to determine the rent price point and there's no "right of sale" but a moral tie to temporary exclusionary rights to property and responsibility to maintain the product of another person's work.

[Topazan]

Also, don't forget that the poor person directly derives rent from the person taking their land, and all the other land in the area if not the world. The concept of poverty is not anything like the concept of poverty now. Up to the point of over population, the poor will always be able to find somewhere to live.

That's assuming that the majority of the world practices anarchogeolibertarianism.  If we're talking about starting with, say, one anarchogeolibertarian town, the rent money is as good as lost with all the free riders from other regions who draw from the pool without paying into it.  It'll be too finely diluted to do any good to anyone.

Yes a rich person could outbid a poor person off their property, but that rich person is now morally responsible to move the poor person to a place of equal rent. This costs the rich person money and thus acts as a disincentive. And the rich person needs to pay rent on the property and this is a net benefit to society including the poor person.

I take exception to the term bullying. If the rich person wants to have exclusive right to that land, then they should have it. They have as much claim as anyone.

"Bullying" refers to the motivation, not the intrinsic nature of the act itself.  Like, "Marry me, or I'll force your fragile, bedridden mother to move to a new place every day until she dies."

I don't really care how you move it: the key part is that you have the moral responsibility to do so and in failing to do so you don't get exclusionary right to the land nor access to the improvement. As a result, if someone were bidding on, say the Empire State Building, they would really only do it if they were also going to purchase the improvements from the current tenant. People buy and sell buildings all the time, it's not a stretch.

In that case, the system breaks as soon as someone builds a immobile improvement.  Suddenly, you can't access their property without them agreeing to sell it to you.  You can no longer bid up the rent, so it stays where it is forever.

What happens if the owner stops paying the rent, and doesn't want to sell their improvements?

[myrkul]

The poor aren't forced to live on someone else's land. They can bid for land just like everyone else. The poor will end up with land that has less utility to society, which is how it should be. It doesn't make sense to have a poor person sitting on top of a copper mine that they can't develop when society desires that copper.

I have no issue with resources going to those who can develop them. Where I take issue is the fact that you're paying everyone else for the right to kick someone off their land. Buy the land from them, don't pay "rent" to some nebulous "commons" because some nebulous "society" wants their land, and then notify the poor bastards that it's not their land anymore.

Also, don't forget that the poor person directly derives rent from the person taking their land, and all the other land in the area if not the world. The concept of poverty is not anything like the concept of poverty now. Up to the point of over population, the poor will always be able to find somewhere to live.

"Quit bitching about your plot of desert land, and enjoy your tiny slice of the rent from what used to be your house, and all the other people who also got shoved out of their houses. And never mind that the person who shoved you out of your house is also getting an equal slice."

I doesn't make sense that people happened to have ancestors who came here before anyone else and put a flag in the ground gives them some kind of overriding moral exclusionary right to land. You want to explain to me how that is fair? Empirically speaking, it has established a ruling class.

Your great grandfather built the house you were raised in, with his own hands. Your entire family has spent their whole lives living in that house. How does that make you a "ruling class"?

The most important point here is that the natural resources are not created by anyone so it makes no sense to say they are exclusively owned by anyone.

No, the natural resources are not created by anyone, but the means of accessing them are. A copper vein does not become a copper mine by itself. Oil (barring unusual circumstances) does not come bubbling up out of the ground on it's own. And ignoring the resources beneath the land, a piece of the prairie does not become a home without human effort. You start pushing people out of their property, don't be surprised if more than one of them pulls an Ellis Wyatt on you.

[Fjordbit]

I have no issue with resources going to those who can develop them. Where I take issue is the fact that you're paying everyone else for the right to kick someone off their land. Buy the land from them, don't pay "rent" to some nebulous "commons" because some nebulous "society" wants their land, and then notify the poor bastards that it's not their land anymore.

But it's not their land. It never was their land and it will never be their land or anyone else's land because they didn't make the land themselves. It's everybody's land and if someone wants a temporary exclusive right to it, then they can bid the rent.

I'm sorry but I just don't see the moral basis of ownership coming from the fact that some guy put a flag in a square of land 300 years ago. It completely makes no sense to me.

"Quit bitching about your plot of desert land, and enjoy your tiny slice of the rent from what used to be your house, and all the other people who also got shoved out of their houses. And never mind that the person who shoved you out of your house is also getting an equal slice."

The person who shoved you you out of your house is (likely) paying more in than they are getting out in rent. The case where they are not paying more in, it's because you decided that you yourself don't want to bid enough to put an equal or more amount in. This means you are living on society. They are paying all of your rent and probably they are paying for your food and improvements.  Soory, but, yeah, you don't get the prime real estate with the ocean view. I don't see the problem.

Your great grandfather built the house you were raised in, with his own hands. Your entire family has spent their whole lives living in that house. How does that make you a "ruling class"?

I was simple stating that our current model of capital ownership of land has empirically lead to a ruling class. You are a kettle saying 'well, your pot might end up black.'

No, the natural resources are not created by anyone, but the means of accessing them are. A copper vein does not become a copper mine by itself. Oil (barring unusual circumstances) does not come bubbling up out of the ground on it's own. And ignoring the resources beneath the land, a piece of the prairie does not become a home without human effort. You start pushing people out of their property, don't be surprised if more than one of them pulls an Ellis Wyatt on you.

And yet if someone is more competent at getting that copper or oil out, then we should give them the means to force the land steaders offf and give access to those resources. Any improvements will be moved (or replicated) elsewhere so don't worry about that. All the effort you put in will not be for naught.

[Richy_T]

barring unusual circumstances

And humorous TV shows. Though I believe it needed an assist even there.

[Atlas]

The moral basis for land ownership and property in general:



Whoever uses the above the most effectively, gets the property. It's how it will always work. It's how a government gets property taxes. It's how a man protects his livestock.

Right and wrong go out the window in the face of the highest power.

[Topazan]

I still can't get my head around the idea of "moving" improvements, or even replicating them.  Aside from the fact that some improvements are pretty much immovable, changing the location of an improvement can destroy its value.

"Sorry, I outbid you on this copper vein, but don't worry, I had my people dig you a mine just like this one down by the river.  Enjoy your big, muddy, copperless hole in the ground.  Well, until it gets flooded, anyway."

[myrkul]

I have no issue with resources going to those who can develop them. Where I take issue is the fact that you're paying everyone else for the right to kick someone off their land. Buy the land from them, don't pay "rent" to some nebulous "commons" because some nebulous "society" wants their land, and then notify the poor bastards that it's not their land anymore.

But it's not their land. It never was their land and it will never be their land or anyone else's land because they didn't make the land themselves. It's everybody's land and if someone wants a temporary exclusive right to it, then they can bid the rent.

I'm sorry but I just don't see the moral basis of ownership coming from the fact that some guy put a flag in a square of land 300 years ago. It completely makes no sense to me.

It's not a flag. It's at minimum, a fence, or some marker posts. It's the physical effort which alters the land that was there into something separate, something different. If all I was requiring was a pole with a flag on it, then you might have a valid point. But I'm not. It's not "everybody's" land, it's nobody's, until that alteration changes it from the state of nature to a man-made product. From a piece of prairie to a tilled field, or from a chunk of forest into a log cabin with driveway, and a garden around back.

"Quit bitching about your plot of desert land, and enjoy your tiny slice of the rent from what used to be your house, and all the other people who also got shoved out of their houses. And never mind that the person who shoved you out of your house is also getting an equal slice."

The person who shoved you you out of your house is (likely) paying more in than they are getting out in rent. The case where they are not paying more in, it's because you decided that you yourself don't want to bid enough to put an equal or more amount in. This means you are living on society. They are paying all of your rent and probably they are paying for your food and improvements.  Soory, but, yeah, you don't get the prime real estate with the ocean view. I don't see the problem.

The problem is, you are stealing the prime real estate with the ocean view from people who have lived there all their lives, simply because you can pay more than they can to some nebulous "commons", rather than paying them the fair market value for the land. And you are justifying this by saying, "Not to worry, in your new home, we'll pay you a small slice of the rent paid for this place. You'll also get a small slice of the rent paid for everywhere else, too, which the person who is currently living in your family home will also be getting."

Your great grandfather built the house you were raised in, with his own hands. Your entire family has spent their whole lives living in that house. How does that make you a "ruling class"?

I was simple stating that our current model of capital ownership of land has empirically lead to a ruling class. You are a kettle saying 'well, your pot might end up black.'

No, I am saying that your system will enable the rich to take whatever they want, leaving no recourse for the poor but to "out-bid" them. When one class of people can take from another with no recourse, that is a ruling class, by definition.

No, the natural resources are not created by anyone, but the means of accessing them are. A copper vein does not become a copper mine by itself. Oil (barring unusual circumstances) does not come bubbling up out of the ground on it's own. And ignoring the resources beneath the land, a piece of the prairie does not become a home without human effort. You start pushing people out of their property, don't be surprised if more than one of them pulls an Ellis Wyatt on you.

And yet if someone is more competent at getting that copper or oil out, then we should give them the means to force the land steaders offf and give access to those resources. Any improvements will be moved (or replicated) elsewhere so don't worry about that. All the effort you put in will not be for naught.

Can you move the nick in the wall that Suzie made when she slid down the stairs in a laundry basket? Can you move the pencil marks that Mom made, to show the heights of the kids as they grew up? Can you move the tire swing in the front yard? Can you move the community in which the house resides? Even if you can, How does that compensate for being uprooted and moved, simply because someone wants the mineral resources underneath your home?

If someone is more competent at getting out copper or oil or whatever from underneath the land, they have the means to get the landsteaders off and get access to the resources. They can offer them a purchase price for the land. Anything else is initiation of force. And if you support initiation of force, you're not anarcho- anything, you're a statist.

[myrkul]

Also, don't forget that the poor person directly derives rent from the person taking their land, and all the other land in the area if not the world. The concept of poverty is not anything like the concept of poverty now. Up to the point of over population, the poor will always be able to find somewhere to live.

That's assuming that the majority of the world practices anarchogeolibertarianism.  If we're talking about starting with, say, one anarchogeolibertarian town, the rent money is as good as lost with all the free riders from other regions who draw from the pool without paying into it.  It'll be too finely diluted to do any good to anyone.

Even assuming that the payout only goes to those who pay in, You're still shuffling resources around to no benefit, and likely with appreciable loss to administration costs, and that's assuming there's no corruption.

[Fjordbit]

I still can't get my head around the idea of "moving" improvements, or even replicating them.  Aside from the fact that some improvements are pretty much immovable, changing the location of an improvement can destroy its value.

If you can't picture it, then don't worry about it. Just picture people selling the improvements as they change land. The need to move improvements is a moral imperative to prevent people from just outbidding once a person has made many improvements. It's doubtful that this would commonly be done.

"Sorry, I outbid you on this copper vein, but don't worry, I had my people dig you a mine just like this one down by the river.  Enjoy your big, muddy, copperless hole in the ground.  Well, until it gets flooded, anyway."

In this case, you don't have a right to the copper, so the fact that you have a hole that leads to no copper isn't a big deal. But likely the miner who won the land doesn't really want to spend the money on a big deep hole and you don't really want one on your new land (btw, you pick where it goes on the new land), so you can come to some kind of monetary agreement that discharges him of his moral responsibility. The real question is why didn't you outbid him to keep the mine if it was worth so much to you and to all of society?

It's not a flag. It's at minimum, a fence, or some marker posts. It's the physical effort which alters the land that was there into something separate, something different.

That can be moved. It's not a basis for establishing any right of property. The work you do to improve the land is morally yours, but the land is not.

If all I was requiring was a pole with a flag on it, then you might have a valid point. But I'm not. It's not "everybody's" land, it's nobody's, until that alteration changes it from the state of nature to a man-made product.

Still don't see it. You didn't make the land so it doesn't magically become yours because you did some stuff to it.

The problem is, you are stealing the prime real estate with the ocean view from people who have lived there all their lives

Nope, you're not stealing anything because the land wasn't theirs. You can't steal something that isn't owned. Furthermore, you aren't getting ownership of it either because you are just getting a temporary exclusive right to the land.

And you are justifying this by saying, "Not to worry, in your new home, we'll pay you a small slice of the rent paid for this place. You'll also get a small slice of the rent paid for everywhere else, too, which the person who is currently living in your family home will also be getting."

It's not a justification. The fact is that there's no justification for this family to think that they have ownership of the land. Because they put a fence up? It's complete madness. I don't understand a social system that says the poor should have a right to ocean front views.

No, I am saying that your system will enable the rich to take whatever they want, leaving no recourse for the poor but to "out-bid" them. When one class of people can take from another with no recourse, that is a ruling class, by definition.

The rich can only take what they can pay for. The benefit of these payments goes to everyone. In your system, the rich create price shocks and endebt the poor to leverage themselves into ownership of of all the land and resources. No one has a chance to break out of the lot their given and people fall into despair as they never have any exclusive right to any land and must pay rent to benefit a small few. This is the world we live in and it has created a ruling class.

You're saying that because poor people can choose the best places to live, that this is a system endemic with oppression and it just doesn't make any sense. If those poor wanted to, they could get a loan, bid out someone fro m a resource patch and mine it more effectively than the person before and come out way ahead. There no systemic oppression.

Can you move the nick in the wall that Suzie made when she slid down the stairs in a laundry basket? Can you move the pencil marks that Mom made, to show the heights of the kids as they grew up? Can you move the tire swing in the front yard?

These things are easily moved.

Can you move the community in which the house resides? Even if you can, How does that compensate for being uprooted and moved, simply because someone wants the mineral resources underneath your home?

These things don't get compensation. The land isn't yours, you just have a temporary right to it. You can't have an expectation of keeping your community nor never moving if you are not willing to match rent. It's not simply because someone wants mineral resources, it's because someone is willing to give a greater social benefit than you are for the right to that land. It's not your land so get the hell off it and let the guy who is doing more use it.

If someone is more competent at getting out copper or oil or whatever from underneath the land, they have the means to get the landsteaders off and get access to the resources. They can offer them a purchase price for the land. Anything else is initiation of force. And if you support initiation of force, you're not anarcho- anything, you're a statist.

When I come onto your land that you mixed with your labor, you would likely put a gun to my face to tell me to get off. But you but have not paid me for the exclusive right to that land, so you are the aggressor, and I am in my rights to fire on you as you have violated the NAP. The person who does rent that exclusive right is within their moral right to use force to get me off the land, also as part of the NAP. I think you do not understand voluntaryism.