Fair Tax and black markets

[Explodicle]

I contend that boundary marking is sufficient labor to claim the land.

And of course if a culture neither marked its boundaries nor put work into it, then "their" land belongs to whoever first sailed over and marked it.

Show me one such culture, that left no mark upon the land.

Does the moon belong to the USA? Marked it.

Would you care to answer the question I posed, or are you conceding the argument?

Oh sorry, I thought you were asking that rhetorically to subtly change your requirement from "marked a boundary" to "left a mark of some kind".

There is no culture that has left no mark upon the land.

My turn: how do you determine how much of a mark is required? (Please no book recommendations as answers)

[1713584730]

1713584730

[1713584730]

1713584730

[1713584730]

1713584730

[myrkul]

I contend that boundary marking is sufficient labor to claim the land.

And of course if a culture neither marked its boundaries nor put work into it, then "their" land belongs to whoever first sailed over and marked it.

Show me one such culture, that left no mark upon the land.

Does the moon belong to the USA? Marked it.

Would you care to answer the question I posed, or are you conceding the argument?

Oh sorry, I thought you were asking that rhetorically to subtly change your requirement from "marked a boundary" to "left a mark of some kind".

There is no culture that has left no mark upon the land.

My turn: how do you determine how much of a mark is required? (Please no book recommendations as answers)

No, you stated, "neither marked its boundaries nor put work into it." So I asked if you knew of a culture that had managed to do so. Unless you know of some way I can mark land without thereby putting work into it?

To answer your question, I do not determine how much of a mark is required. That is something which must be determined via common law. If I were called to judge a case on a questionable boundary, I would say that it must be: clearly visible, and clearly man-made. For instance, a plowed field should need no boundary markers, since the field itself marks out a boundary. A forest's edge, however, does not make a good boundary, unless there are some sort of clearly man-made markers, such as signage.

[Topazan]

Ok, I read that chapter.  The wikipedia quote was not misleadingly taken out of context.  The writers of that book do not defend the "mixing labor with land" idea.  Instead, they advocate the idea that people can claim land just by marking the boundaries.  I wonder if you may have misunderstood one or the other if you say they're the same.

I contend that boundary marking is sufficient labor to claim the land.

It's not just "cultivating" land that makes it yours, it's putting some labor into it. That labor could be as simple as fencing it, or putting up some signs and breaking a trail through it. You can certainly own a hunting preserve or a campground.

I would suggest reading the rest of the book, not just that chapter. I also suggest, to address our other discussion, The production of security, by Gustave de Molinari.

Earlier I asked you how much land a given act of labor entitles you to.  You answered, "as much as you alter with that work,".  Marking boundaries does not alter the entire area enclosed by those boundaries, just the boundaries themselves.  So, if building a fence entitles you to the entire area enclosed by that fence, then some acts of labor entitle you to more land than you directly alter.  Which acts, how much, who decides?

Even if you can come up with a consistent policy, it's still rather arbitrary to determine ownership this way.  If I mark some land as my own you have to pay me to use it, why?  What value did I provide to you in exchange for the payment you give me to buy "my" land?  You would be better off if I didn't exist, and yet you're paying me.

Thanks for the recommendation, I may check it out sometime.  I didn't think there was another discussion.  I thought I laid out my terms simply enough:  Start your security company, show that you can protect your clients from governmental violence, and I may consider switching from my current provider.  I have a few complaints about my current service plan, but they have an exemplary record in one area which I prioritize highly: that of existence.

[myrkul]

Earlier I asked you how much land a given act of labor entitles you to.  You answered, "as much as you alter with that work,".  Marking boundaries does not alter the entire area enclosed by those boundaries, just the boundaries themselves.  So, if building a fence entitles you to the entire area enclosed by that fence, then some acts of labor entitle you to more land than you directly alter.  Which acts, how much, who decides?

But you are directly altering that plot of land that is fenced in. Just ask FirstAscent, by separating it from the rest of the land around it, you are changing (even if subtly) it's nature.

Even if you can come up with a consistent policy, it's still rather arbitrary to determine ownership this way.  If I mark some land as my own you have to pay me to use it, why?  What value did I provide to you in exchange for the payment you give me to buy "my" land?  You would be better off if I didn't exist, and yet you're paying me.

I would not necessarily be better off without you, for presumably you have determined why I should value that land over someone else's, yes? If not, then I can just as well go and stake my own claim elsewhere, or go to someone who has evaluated their land's value.

Thanks for the recommendation, I may check it out sometime.  I don't think there is another discussion.  I thought I laid out my terms simply enough:  Start your security company, show that you can protect your clients from governmental violence, and I may consider switching from my current provider.  I have a few complaints about my current service plan, but they have an exemplary record in one area which I prioritize highly: that of existence.

Rest assured, that one of the very first things that any competing security provider will do is prove its ability to sustain an attack from a government. Which is one of the main reasons why there aren't any (openly, that I know of) competing security providers. At least on the national level. I would point to the various armed and unarmed private security companies which supplement the local police force's ability to stop and deter crime on their clients' property.

[Topazan]

But you are directly altering that plot of land that is fenced in. Just ask FirstAscent, by separating it from the rest of the land around it, you are changing (even if subtly) it's nature.

By that logic, you've also altered the land on the other side of the fence, too.  Aside from that, I don't know where to start with all the further questions that statement raises.

I would not necessarily be better off without you, for presumably you have determined why I should value that land over someone else's, yes? If not, then I can just as well go and stake my own claim elsewhere, or go to someone who has evaluated their land's value.

How is that necessarily the case?  I could have just staked out land at random.  You could have determined the value yourself.  In fact, it might have been you who made it valuable in the first place, by developing the surrounding area.  It could be the only land available that fits your needs, so you can't go elsewhere.

As to the issue of security firms, my challenge stands, and there's no point in saying anything else.

[Explodicle]

I contend that boundary marking is sufficient labor to claim the land.

And of course if a culture neither marked its boundaries nor put work into it, then "their" land belongs to whoever first sailed over and marked it.

Show me one such culture, that left no mark upon the land.

Does the moon belong to the USA? Marked it.

Would you care to answer the question I posed, or are you conceding the argument?

Oh sorry, I thought you were asking that rhetorically to subtly change your requirement from "marked a boundary" to "left a mark of some kind".

There is no culture that has left no mark upon the land.

My turn: how do you determine how much of a mark is required? (Please no book recommendations as answers)

No, you stated, "neither marked its boundaries nor put work into it." So I asked if you knew of a culture that had managed to do so. Unless you know of some way I can mark land without thereby putting work into it?

To answer your question, I do not determine how much of a mark is required. That is something which must be determined via common law. If I were called to judge a case on a questionable boundary, I would say that it must be: clearly visible, and clearly man-made. For instance, a plowed field should need no boundary markers, since the field itself marks out a boundary. A forest's edge, however, does not make a good boundary, unless there are some sort of clearly man-made markers, such as signage.

You can certainly leave a mark upon land without some sort of clearly man-made signage. For example hunting and fishing, collecting wood, etc. If a hypothetical tribe came to depend upon those natural resources, a hypothetical group of judges might repeatedly rule against them for centuries, marginalizing them and forcing them into tiny worthless plots of land far from their origins.

And I certainly never pegged you as the type who would define ownership as what some judges say it is. Having a larger group of people decide on one consistent definition might be preferable.

[myrkul]

But you are directly altering that plot of land that is fenced in. Just ask FirstAscent, by separating it from the rest of the land around it, you are changing (even if subtly) it's nature.

By that logic, you've also altered the land on the other side of the fence, too.  Aside from that, I don't know where to start with all the further questions that statement raises.

But less than that I have fenced in, and in a different manner. Suffice it to say I consider a boundary marking of some sort sufficient effort put into land, in itself sufficient alteration of the land thus enclosed, to claim it.

I would not necessarily be better off without you, for presumably you have determined why I should value that land over someone else's, yes? If not, then I can just as well go and stake my own claim elsewhere, or go to someone who has evaluated their land's value.

How is that necessarily the case?  I could have just staked out land at random.  You could have determined the value yourself.  In fact, it might have been you who made it valuable in the first place, by developing the surrounding area.  It could be the only land available that fits your needs, so you can't go elsewhere.

Well, if you staked out land at random, and it happened to have some value to someone, you got lucky, just as if you had registered sex.com in the very early days of the internet. By the same logic, you could ask how a single $22 share of Apple in 1980 entitles you to almost $3900 of Apple stocks today. It's called wise (or lucky) investment.

<pyramid....CHOP!>
To answer your question, I do not determine how much of a mark is required. That is something which must be determined via common law. If I were called to judge a case on a questionable boundary, I would say that it must be: clearly visible, and clearly man-made. For instance, a plowed field should need no boundary markers, since the field itself marks out a boundary. A forest's edge, however, does not make a good boundary, unless there are some sort of clearly man-made markers, such as signage.

You can certainly leave a mark upon land without some sort of clearly man-made signage. For example hunting and fishing, collecting wood, etc. If a hypothetical tribe came to depend upon those natural resources, a hypothetical group of judges might repeatedly rule against them for centuries, marginalizing them and forcing them into tiny worthless plots of land far from their origins.

And I certainly never pegged you as the type who would define ownership as what some judges say it is. Having a larger group of people decide on one consistent definition might be preferable.

Hunting and fishing don't leave marks. At least, no more than would an animal doing the same thing. (killing an animal for meat, or pulling a fish up out of the water) Collecting wood may, or may not, depending on the means of collection. Can you find me a culture which made no boundary markings, cleared no trees, built no shelters, left no midden piles, or made no other lasting markings on the land they inhabited?

Really? You didn't peg a market anarchist for being one who would support common law? You must not know much about market anarchy, then.

[Topazan]

But less than that I have fenced in, and in a different manner. Suffice it to say I consider a boundary marking of some sort sufficient effort put into land, in itself sufficient alteration of the land thus enclosed, to claim it.

So, it has to be a certain level of alteration?  And a certain type?  What level, what type?

Well, if you staked out land at random, and it happened to have some value to someone, you got lucky, just as if you had registered sex.com in the very early days of the internet. By the same logic, you could ask how a single $22 share of Apple in 1980 entitles you to almost $3900 of Apple stocks today. It's called wise (or lucky) investment.

Saying that I got lucky doesn't answer the question of what value I provided.  You're right, domain name grabbing is the same, it produces no value.  Investing in a company is different, because you provided $22 of value when you bought that share, and in doing so helped build the company.

What good have I done you by grabbing land or a domain name you want before you have a chance?  If I hadn't done that, and no one else did, you would get those things for free, so by doing them I didn't help you in any way.  Why should you have to pay me when all I did was inconvenience you?

[myrkul]

But less than that I have fenced in, and in a different manner. Suffice it to say I consider a boundary marking of some sort sufficient effort put into land, in itself sufficient alteration of the land thus enclosed, to claim it.

So, it has to be a certain level of alteration?  And a certain type?  What level, what type?

Well, if you staked out land at random, and it happened to have some value to someone, you got lucky, just as if you had registered sex.com in the very early days of the internet. By the same logic, you could ask how a single $22 share of Apple in 1980 entitles you to almost $3900 of Apple stocks today. It's called wise (or lucky) investment.

Saying that I got lucky doesn't answer the question of what value I provided.  You're right, domain name grabbing is the same, it produces no value.  Investing in a company is different, because you provided $22 of value when you bought that share, and in doing so helped build the company.

What good have I done you by grabbing land or a domain name you want before you have a chance?  If I hadn't done that, and no one else did, you would get those things for free, so by doing them I didn't help you in any way.  Why should you have to pay me when all I did was inconvenience you?

Well, in the domain name instance, you recognized the value of that domain, and paid the minimal fees to register it. If you ask more than I value the domain, I'll just go get sex.cc, sex.org, or sex.xxx instead, either paying the minimal fee or paying a fair market value, depending on if it's been claimed yet or not.

Likewise, recognizing and claiming valuable land does not require much effort, but what if someone had come along and built a hotel atop an oil field? By recognizing and claiming that oil field, before it gets turned into a hotel, you save me the effort of demolishing the hotel, to say nothing of the expense of convincing the owners that it would be better served as an oil field than a hotel.

By claiming and retaining the land (or website) it it's original state, You save me the trouble of buying out owners who have invested in the site, and then re-developing it to my own taste. The Suffolk Energy Exchange might object to my building a porn site on its old domain, after all.

[420]

the only problem is that landowners have an unfair advantage over gaining the resources (funds, money, moola, dinero) from their labor to justify their reward of property
for instance the owning ex. native american land of vast size

[myrkul]

the only problem is that landowners have an unfair advantage over gaining the resources (funds, money, moola, dinero) from their labor to justify their reward of property
for instance the owning ex. native american land of vast size

I assume you don't approve of landlords, either, then? Or hotels?

[420]

the only problem is that landowners have an unfair advantage over gaining the resources (funds, money, moola, dinero) from their labor to justify their reward of property
for instance the owning ex. native american land of vast size

I assume you don't approve of landlords, either, then? Or hotels?

hate em. we need to all sleep on the hard asphalt of the street.

Good point, stumped me.

[Topazan]

Well, in the domain name instance, you recognized the value of that domain, and paid the minimal fees to register it. If you ask more than I value the domain, I'll just go get sex.cc, sex.org, or sex.xxx instead, either paying the minimal fee or paying a fair market value, depending on if it's been claimed yet or not.

Likewise, recognizing and claiming valuable land does not require much effort, but what if someone had come along and built a hotel atop an oil field? By recognizing and claiming that oil field, before it gets turned into a hotel, you save me the effort of demolishing the hotel, to say nothing of the expense of convincing the owners that it would be better served as an oil field than a hotel.

By claiming and retaining the land (or website) it it's original state, You save me the trouble of buying out owners who have invested in the site, and then re-developing it to my own taste. The Suffolk Energy Exchange might object to my building a porn site on its old domain, after all.

All of those things are merely possibilities.  I could have recognized its potential and preserved it in its pristine state when others wanted to develop it, or I could have grabbed it 15 minutes before you would have after overhearing you say you were going to claim it.

Bottom line is, you had access to something.  I decreased your access to that something.  Now, I want you to pay me simply to restore the level of access you had before I entered the picture.

You say that if I hadn't decreased your access, someone else might have decreased it more.  Well, that makes me like one of those armed gangs: forcing on you a protection service that you didn't ask for.  If instead of paying me you choose to go with your second choice of land or domain, I have destroyed for you the difference in value between your first and second choice.  I should be paying you for that, not the other way around.

Let's talk about domains.  If there was no fee for domain name registrations, and they were permanent, I'll bet someone would have written a script to register every single domain name anyone would ever want.  People who wanted to start a new website would either have to do everything he says and pay whatever he wants or be stuck using 30+ character long strings of random letters and numbers.  That doesn't seem like an ideal situation for free market competition.

Instead, there's still a little bit of artificial scarcity of domain names, but even the small yearly fee keeps it from getting that out of hand.  That's what the land tax would do for land.  Claiming land for future sale would still be possible, just not free.

[myrkul]

Instead, there's still a little bit of artificial scarcity of domain names, but even the small yearly fee keeps it from getting that out of hand.  That's what the land tax would do for land.  Claiming land for future sale would still be possible, just not free.

No, that's what the required amount of labor to claim the land does. Even if you only have to put up a fence, or post signs every five yards, that still enough work to add that stumbling block to prevent the sort of scripting attack you mentioned with domain names. Land tax would just funnel funds from both "rightful owners" and these sorts of "land-grabbers" to a monolithic entity with nobody's best interests at heart.

If there must be taxation (and I do not believe there must), then land tax is one of the more fair ways to go about it. But what gives the taxing body the right to claim original ownership over that piece of land, and charge you for it's use? You'll note that this is essentially the same question you asked me. They've done nothing, except lay claim to it (and didn't even bother to mark it out), why should I pay them? What differentiates them from the guy who ran a script and claimed all the domain names?

[Richy_T]

I think the main issue is that the only real reason to own lots and lots of land is to control the people who wish to use it. I don't have solid answers and don't claim to be drawing lines but if you own more than "as far as the eye can see", you possibly have more than you should.

[myrkul]

I think the main issue is that the only real reason to own lots and lots of land is to control the people who wish to use it. I don't have solid answers and don't claim to be drawing lines but if you own more than "as far as the eye can see", you possibly have more than you should.

The only entities I know of that own that much land are governments. Possible exception: the Catholic Church (which counts as a government, in my book).

[Topazan]

No, that's what the required amount of labor to claim the land does. Even if you only have to put up a fence, or post signs every five yards, that still enough work to add that stumbling block to prevent the sort of scripting attack you mentioned with domain names. Land tax would just funnel funds from both "rightful owners" and these sorts of "land-grabbers" to a monolithic entity with nobody's best interests at heart.

It may slightly slow down the rate at which land is claimed.  Less and less as people developed better 'marking technology' (I'm picturing jets carpetbombing a field with some brightly colored dye), but it would slow it down.  That still doesn't address the fundamental arbitrariness of it, nor provide any compensation for the people who have their options diminished by the act of claiming.  Besides, there's only so much land in the world, and no matter how long it takes eventually it will all be claimed, creating a landed class with a permanent advantage over the rest.

If there must be taxation (and I do not believe there must), then land tax is one of the more fair ways to go about it. But what gives the taxing body the right to claim original ownership over that piece of land, and charge you for it's use? You'll note that this is essentially the same question you asked me. They've done nothing, except lay claim to it (and didn't even bother to mark it out), why should I pay them? What differentiates them from the guy who ran a script and claimed all the domain names?

Put simply: they conquered the land.  They proved that they are able to defeat anyone who would challenge their power.  They reached an understanding with the foreign governments of the world that they alone are sovereign within its borders, and it's this understanding and fear of war that keeps their territory safe from those foreign governments.  It is by their fiat that you are named the owner of a piece of land, and they have the means to enforce it.  I'll freely admit it's more a matter of might than right.

I know you're going to find this objectionable, and I don't think I'll ever be able to convince you it isn't, so I leave you with this: If and when private security agencies start providing a genuine alternative to governments, I'll rethink my position.

[helloworld]

if you own more than "as far as the eye can see", you possibly have more than you should.

I would perhaps change that to "as far as the ear can hear", because quiet solitude is a very valid reason for wanting large properties.

[myrkul]

I know you're going to find this objectionable, and I don't think I'll ever be able to convince you it isn't, so I leave you with this: If and when private security agencies start providing a genuine alternative to governments, I'll rethink my position.

Let me see if I get this right:

You think "I own it because I was the first one there, and marked it" (however that marking gets done) is not legitimate, but "I own it because I killed the fuckers who lived there, and anyone else who tried to move in" is?

[interlagos]

I believe in the future no Land Tax will be necessary.
It's funny but the solution might come from how Bitcoin ownership is protected.

Do you pay taxes to a central authority to protect your claim on bitcoins? No!
What you do is keep the secret key from a record in the distributed database protected by all the participants' computing power.

I'm not trying to pretend that it solves the initial distribution problem for the entirety of land, but once the initial distribution is settled (it can even be derived from the current setup) maintaining the ownership to a piece of land shouldn't incur any costs.
So in brief the solution is to create an open distributed database with pieces of land represented by coordinates of their boundaries (pieces mustn't overlap) and have unique addresses attached to them with private keys kept by the their respective land owners. The transfer of ownership would be as easy as signing and broadcasting the transaction [1].
LandCoin anyone? If there isn't any reasonable concept behind LandCoin mining then the land database in question should be protected by merge-mining it with monetary blockchain (whatever that ends up being).

Now if your land is under attack, then you can hire a defense agency to which you can easily prove to be a land owner and everybody can easily verify that. So you only pay when you're under attack and unable to defend yourself by your own means. It's much different from just paying for the ability to be defended even if you don't need it.

[1]: It would be even possible to sell part of the land in that way. For example if Alice has a private key from the address A which has piece of land defined by boundary L attached to it, then she can form a transaction which says that subset of L defined by L1 now belongs to address B (owned by Bob) while subset L2 (normally the remainder of L after subtracting L1) now belongs to address A1 owned by Alice.
The network only needs to validate that pieces of land in transaction don't violate a simple rules for transaction to be accepted.