Fair Tax and black markets

[myrkul]

In my system, if you don't like that, you can find a spot to set up a new pay toilet (probably not an option in a playground), or you can buy out one of the owners.
In your system, you can "buy out" the owner of the pay toilet, not by giving him enough money to make him give up the business, but by paying the rest of the kids to let you be the one to beat them up if you they don't pay to pee.

Just to clarify here. They'll only beat you up if you try to force them to pay to pee, as they should because you're the aggressor trying to take their money. If you wanted to charge them, then you should have secured a temporary exclusionary right to the land the toilet is on instead of free riding.

Once again you prove you don't actually read what you respond to. I've corrected an error that should make the statement more clear, but even assuming you read my statement incorrectly, (which admittedly was the way it was written) your response makes no sense.

Also, It's telling that you chose this to respond to, rather than attempting to refute my previous statement.

[Explodicle]

Remember that the market price of copper is composed of two parts: the amount that the people who want copper are willing to pay, and the amount that the people who sell copper are willing to accept for it. Raising overhead puts pressure on the mine owners to not accept lower prices, raising the market price.

Of course it's two parts, that's why I provided you with a supply & demand graph on the previous page (I suppose it's telling that you didn't respond to it). You'll see that land taxes don't change market prices because the quantity of land is fixed. It doesn't matter how pressured the landlord feels; marginal costs are unaffected.

[myrkul]

Remember that the market price of copper is composed of two parts: the amount that the people who want copper are willing to pay, and the amount that the people who sell copper are willing to accept for it. Raising overhead puts pressure on the mine owners to not accept lower prices, raising the market price.

Of course it's two parts, that's why I provided you with a supply & demand graph on the previous page (I suppose it's telling that you didn't respond to it). You'll see that land taxes don't change market prices because the quantity of land is fixed. It doesn't matter how pressured the landlord feels; marginal costs are unaffected.

I didn't respond to it because I'm not an economist, and those graphs have always just looked like pretty colored lines to me. But what I do know is that those lines move. Find me a graph without the tax?

I also know that it's ridiculous to think that a copper miner is going to lose money rather than raise prices.The only way that that will happen is if the price is already so high that consumers are starting to look for alternatives to copper, and if the price goes up any more, they'll switch.

You say that the supply of land is inelastic, so increasing the tax won't affect the price. But while that's true, the supply of copper is elastic. Even though there's a fixed amount in the land, some is easier (and therefore cheaper) to get out, and some is more difficult, and more expensive, to reach. Cutting into profits means that the more difficult to reach copper will be left where it is (no longer profitable to get to), reducing the supply. So raising the tax probably won't affect the price of the land, at least until the point where it makes the land worthless for it's intended purpose, but it certainly will affect the price of copper.

[Topazan]

@Fjordbit - So, your contention is that we only own the physical forms of the products of our labor, and not their value?  "Thanks spell-checking my book.  I can't pay you, so just copy down the words you fixed for your own use."  "Thanks for the lifesaving surgery, as payment have a cadaver that's had the same operation."

I'm only about an eighth of the way into Progress and Poverty.  So, I'm curious if your ideas come from Henry George.  If so, I hope he explains them a little better.

Market forces would accomplish these goals. As you note, the tax/rent simply increases overhead, and thus, prices. Overhead is a market force. Even using a land tax, you're using market forces, encouraging efficiency by raising overhead. Profit does not come simply from monopoly control of a resource (especially when it's not a monopoly), it comes from providing that resource to the public. Let's say that instead of pay toilets, it's copper mines. There's a significant amount of overhead already in digging up copper, to say nothing of the expense of finding and getting to that copper in the first place. That sets a lower limit on the price of copper, which a land tax would only raise. If someone comes up with a more efficient method of mining copper, that allows a lower baseline price of copper, he can then underbid the others not using that process. The overhead without the land tax is more than sufficient to encourage efficiency in an open market.

Is it not possible for the price of copper to be increased through collusion?  For that matter, what would stop one person from acquiring all the copper mines in the area?  Competition tends to drive down prices, but when there are a fixed number of possible competitors, the effect is less certain.  In many industries, new competitors can enter the market at any time.  Not so with natural resources.  That's what I meant by monopolistic control.  There might be more than one mine, but still a limited number.

On the contrary, I acknowledge that land is a scarce resource. Where we disagree is in the ownership of it in it's raw state. You contend that the land belongs to all, I contend that it belongs to none. As you say, you have the right to own the products of your labor. You also argue that the land, in it's raw state, was created by no human. I actually agree with both points. What I add to that is that you only have the right to claim the products of your own labor. The land in it's raw state is not created by human labor, thus no man has right to lay claim on it. It is unowned by anyone, and most definitely, unowned by "everyone."

If you acknowledge land is a scarce resource, perhaps it would be logical to refrain from saying things like "...there are plenty of other sites to set up coffee shops, and plenty of demand."?

The question of ownership of raw land is the real heart of the issue.  Actually, I'm tempted to say I agree with you that it belongs to no one.  However, while you do not accept that "no one" is the same as "everyone", I do not accept that "no one" is the same as "anyone".

I actually do understand now the reasoning behind the homestead principle, at least some forms of it.  If you build a house, you own the house, and if someone wants to remove it to use the land for something else, they have to buy it from you.  That makes sense.

However, land ownership gives you much more than that.  Under a personal property system, you now control not only the house but also the land underneath.  The market price for selling or renting the house will depend heavily on the location of the house.  If we're talking about stakes or signs, you can't even pretend that the value of the property has much to do with your labor.  You say that you only have the right to claim the products of your own labor, but when you "claim" land, you can get quite a bit more from it than you put into it.  At the very least, you gain not only the products of your own labor, but the products of the labor of everyone who works the land in the future.

This is clearly illustrated with practices like sharecropping.  There have been many businesses past and present that basically consist of letting someone else work the land and taking all but a small portion of the product of their labor.  The mechanic can say "Yes, my fees are high, but without someone like me your car would still be broken."  The doctor can say "Yes my fees are high, but without someone like, you'd be dead."  The landlord can say... what?

He should compensate them for the loss of the right to claim the land that he claimed? I would see that, if they did not have the exact same opportunity that he did, and simply failed to take it. It's not compensation for opportunity lost, it's reward for waiting. One should not be paid for doing nothing. Initiative is not, in and of itself, something that entitles you to reward, but neither is the lack of it. The man who builds the coffee shop will not be getting rewarded simply for his initiative, but for his initiative in producing value - selling coffee. To say nothing of the labor and expense involved in setting up the coffee shop.

Actually, the scenario is unrealistic assuming they had the homestead system from the start- by the time the city is large enough to support a coffee shop, all the available land would have been claimed by speculators.  He might have to rent the space for his coffee shop.

Why might some people claim land and others not?  There could be any number of possible reasons.  Maybe the first ten people to arrive grabbed it all, then left it only to their eldest sons.  Maybe some of them happened to be slow runners.  Maybe they were busy doing something productive.  Maybe the city was founded in a less-enlightened time when only certain types of people were allowed to own land, and their descendents have maintained their markers since.

Whatever great qualities the speculators showed - initiative, foresight, creativity, athleticism, they were wasted in pursuit of the arbitrary and non-productive task of pounding in stakes, and so are the fortunes that the successful of them will make in rent.

[myrkul]

Is it not possible for the price of copper to be increased through collusion?  For that matter, what would stop one person from acquiring all the copper mines in the area?  Competition tends to drive down prices, but when there are a fixed number of possible competitors, the effect is less certain.  In many industries, new competitors can enter the market at any time.  Not so with natural resources.  That's what I meant by monopolistic control.  There might be more than one mine, but still a limited number.

Oh, certainly it's possible, but remember that copper is not the only thing you can use to make many things, and it's recyclable, so if the price goes too high, replacements can be found, and people looking for copper can shift from buying from mines to buying from recycling centers.

Collusion tends to fall apart for the same reasons that it gets started... people get greedy, realize that they can get more money by undercutting their buddies, and the cartel falls apart. Also, buying all the mines in an area is expensive. "Cornering the market" never happens, for exactly that reason. The more you buy, the more expensive the rest becomes.

If you acknowledge land is a scarce resource, perhaps it would be logical to refrain from saying things like "...there are plenty of other sites to set up coffee shops, and plenty of demand."?

How do you think cities expand? "Scarce" is relative.

The question of ownership of raw land is the real heart of the issue.  Actually, I'm tempted to say I agree with you that it belongs to no one.  However, while you do not accept that "no one" is the same as "everyone", I do not accept that "no one" is the same as "anyone".

Well, "no one" is not the same as "anyone". You don't own it until you've transformed it in some way.

I actually do understand now the reasoning behind the homestead principle, at least some forms of it.  If you build a house, you own the house, and if someone wants to remove it to use the land for something else, they have to buy it from you.  That makes sense.

However, land ownership gives you much more than that.  Under a personal property system, you now control not only the house but also the land underneath.  The market price for selling or renting the house will depend heavily on the location of the house.  If we're talking about stakes or signs, you can't even pretend that the value of the property has much to do with your labor.  You say that you only have the right to claim the products of your own labor, but when you "claim" land, you can get quite a bit more from it than you put into it.  At the very least, you gain not only the products of your own labor, but the products of the labor of everyone who works the land in the future.

This is clearly illustrated with practices like sharecropping.  There have been many businesses past and present that basically consist of letting someone else work the land and taking all but a small portion of the product of their labor.  The mechanic can say "Yes, my fees are high, but without someone like me your car would still be broken."  The doctor can say "Yes my fees are high, but without someone like, you'd be dead."  The landlord can say... what?

"Without me or someone like me, you'd have to build and maintain your own house" There's a reason sharecropping doesn't happen anymore...

As for the rest, while you don't gain the products of the labor of future owners, if you've claimed land with lots of intrinsic (say, mineral) value, you're right that you might be able to get more than you've put into it. Like I said, however, make a wise investment, and you get more out than you put in, too. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with profit.

Actually, the scenario is unrealistic assuming they had the homestead system from the start- by the time the city is large enough to support a coffee shop, all the available land would have been claimed by speculators.  He might have to rent the space for his coffee shop.

Not all the land. Remember, cities grow. Cities grow in almost exactly that way: People expand out looking for new space for their business, or their home, or whatever.

Why might some people claim land and others not?  There could be any number of possible reasons.  Maybe the first ten people to arrive grabbed it all, then left it only to their eldest sons.  Maybe some of them happened to be slow runners.  Maybe they were busy doing something productive.  Maybe the city was founded in a less-enlightened time when only certain types of people were allowed to own land, and their descendents have maintained their markers since.

Whatever great qualities the speculators showed - initiative, foresight, creativity, athleticism, they were wasted in pursuit of the arbitrary and non-productive task of pounding in stakes, and so are the fortunes that the successful of them will make in rent.

Land can also be bought from previous owners, and even someone deriving rent income can be convinced to sell... the house I'm living in now, we bought from the landlord.

Most people aren't simply going to be pounding in stakes and then resting on their laurels. Especially in a frontier area like a new city. They're going to be grabbing up land to build businesses and homes, not simply to speculate. Any speculators that do grab some land, will likely be bought out pretty quick, or find that their investment was not worth what they thought it was.

[JoelKatz]

So just to be clear. That's just your definition of property. In my definition, people can't own land because they didn't make it. Their exclusionary right is only temporary and based on a system of winning a rent auction. You follow Locke, and I follow George. Yours is just an idea, and I personally don't see it's merit.

Your definition obsessively focuses on an irrelevant detail while ignoring the things that are actually important. While humans don't make land, the value of land comes from human effort. The difference in value between an acre in the middle of Los Angeles and an acre in the middle of Australia was all the result of human effort.

This same argument about land would apply to everything. Why should anyone be entitled to anything since all the raw materials it is made out of weren't made by anyone? Copper isn't made by man any more than land is. But just the same, all the value *does* come from the actions of humans.

[Topazan]

Oh, certainly it's possible, but remember that copper is not the only thing you can use to make many things, and it's recyclable, so if the price goes too high, replacements can be found, and people looking for copper can shift from buying from mines to buying from recycling centers.

Collusion tends to fall apart for the same reasons that it gets started... people get greedy, realize that they can get more money by undercutting their buddies, and the cartel falls apart. Also, buying all the mines in an area is expensive. "Cornering the market" never happens, for exactly that reason. The more you buy, the more expensive the rest becomes.

So things will eventually return to normal... AFTER the cartel has made a pretty penny.

Let's be clear, I'm not disputing that a full private property system can survive.  I know ours is still going fairly strong.  So, when I point out the various ways that people can manipulate the system, I'm not saying they'll bring down the whole society, just that they'll make undeserved gains.  There's no reason to keep pointing out the ways to mitigate the problems they cause, that's not the issue.  While people might find ways to adapt to the artificial copper scarcity, that doesn't change the morality or lack thereof of inducing that scarcity.

How do you think cities expand? Wink "Scarce" is relative.

What makes you think the land bordering the city wouldn't be claimed? And the land bordering that and so on?  I think it's quite possible that all land that could be considered 'in' the city by any reasonable definition could be claimed.

Well, "no one" is not the same as "anyone". You don't own it until you've transformed it in some way.

I'm sorry, I just don't see the reasoning behind marking land granting exclusive ownership.

"Without me or someone like me, you'd have to build and maintain your own house" There's a reason sharecropping doesn't happen anymore...

I was talking about the sharecropper landlord.  And apparently it does still happen.  Some mines in Peru use the cachorreo system, where miners are given one day a month to dig up some ore for themselves, which is their only payment.

Now, granted these countries probably have other problems with corrupt governments and such that may be limiting opportunity, but all of this would be legal under AnCap, so the point remains.  The landowners have the power to collect the labor of others who want to work the land.  If the basis of their claim to ownership is that they put work into the land, how can they justify confiscating the labor of others upon the land?

As for the rest, while you don't gain the products of the labor of future owners, if you've claimed land with lots of intrinsic (say, mineral) value, you're right that you might be able to get more than you've put into it. Like I said, however, make a wise investment, and you get more out than you put in, too. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with profit.

I meant that you gain the products of the labor of anyone who wants to work on the land while you own it.  Whether you hire them as as employees, sharecroppers, or renters the work that would have gained them the land if you hadn't been there goes to making you richer instead.

And what I meant when I said you get more than you put in, I mean, for instance, that if you build a shack you get the shack and the land it sits on.  I don't think you can say they're one-and-the-same.  The land can be much more valuable.  You plant a garden one year, and the next year people could be begging you to let them do the same.  You'll both do the same labor, except your reward was even more than what you harvested, and they'll only get their harvest minus rent.  I say taking control of land means more than taking control of the labor you put into it.

For my response to the rest of your post, see my first response up above.

Your definition obsessively focuses on an irrelevant detail while ignoring the things that are actually important. While humans don't make land, the value of land comes from human effort. The difference in value between an acre in the middle of Los Angeles and an acre in the middle of Australia was all the result of human effort.

Some of it was the result of human effort, but not necessarily the effort of the owner.  That's the problem many geoists perceive with the current system.  It allows people to profit from the industry of others.

This same argument about land would apply to everything. Why should anyone be entitled to anything since all the raw materials it is made out of weren't made by anyone? Copper isn't made by man any more than land is. But just the same, all the value *does* come from the actions of humans.

All raw materials come from some form of land in the economic sense.  If a solution can be found for land, it will cover everything else.

[JoelKatz]

Your definition obsessively focuses on an irrelevant detail while ignoring the things that are actually important. While humans don't make land, the value of land comes from human effort. The difference in value between an acre in the middle of Los Angeles and an acre in the middle of Australia was all the result of human effort.

Some of it was the result of human effort, but not necessarily the effort of the owner.  That's the problem many geoists perceive with the current system.  It allows people to profit from the industry of others.

It doesn't matter whose effort it is. If I buy a car, so long as I pay fair market value for the car, why does it matter whose effort made the car valuable? Sure, someone mined the steel, someone invented the automobile, someone manufactured the engine, and so on. But if I acquired it at market value, it's all my car. Once you realize that this argument applies to *everything*, not just land, it quickly falls apart.

And only land ownership will make it possible for people to capture the value of improvements to land. Say I want to build something that will go on one piece of land but increase the value of a number of surrounding pieces of land. In the absence of full private ownership, there's no way I can capture the value this project will add. However, if all that land is privately owned, I can go to each owner and get them to agree to share with me some of the increased value. I may not get them all to agree, but at least I have a chance. Without private land ownership, there's no way at all I can get a share of the value I'm creating.

This same argument about land would apply to everything. Why should anyone be entitled to anything since all the raw materials it is made out of weren't made by anyone? Copper isn't made by man any more than land is. But just the same, all the value *does* come from the actions of humans.

All raw materials come from some form of land in the economic sense.  If a solution can be found for land, it will cover everything else.

The solution is simple -- if you buy land at fair market value, it's yours. All of the land on Earth has an owner right now, though admittedly some have acquired it unfairly. But we're not going to give America back to the Indians. So we have now what we have. Pretty much everyone who owns land today has acquired it at fair market value anyway. And it would be truly bizarre to treat some present-day landowners different from others.

If you want to talk about what the rules should be for the Moon or if we build underwater cities, we can. But most land is already owned by people who, by and large, paid fair market value for it. So unless you want to try to right ancient injustices (which is basically impossible since the victims are dead) people own what they own.

[myrkul]

While people might find ways to adapt to the artificial copper scarcity, that doesn't change the morality or lack thereof of inducing that scarcity.

Well, it's a valid point, every system has it's flaws. That people can sometimes collude to make more profit is one of them, in any market system. Geoism is no different, it just has different flaws.

How do you think cities expand? Wink "Scarce" is relative.

What makes you think the land bordering the city wouldn't be claimed? And the land bordering that and so on?  I think it's quite possible that all land that could be considered 'in' the city by any reasonable definition could be claimed.

Well, at this point, effectively all land is claimed, everywhere. so, I sort of have to concede this point. Land can be purchased, however. Undeveloped land is typically much cheaper than developed, and land outside the "city" likewise tends toward the cheaper end. So expansion is still possible, often at much lower cost than renting or buying a place inside the city.

Well, "no one" is not the same as "anyone". You don't own it until you've transformed it in some way.

I'm sorry, I just don't see the reasoning behind marking land granting exclusive ownership.

Well, I see your point, but I'm trying to allow for those who like nature in it's natural state (for instance, people who would like a hunting preserve) to do so without having to murder any who come in, and without enabling the creation of a state (which any form of geoism would eventually do). Do you have a better solution for those who would like to preserve a patch of nature from development? Would breaking a trail through the patch of land suffice as enough improvement to allow for ownership?

The landowners have the power to collect the labor of others who want to work the land.  If the basis of their claim to ownership is that they put work into the land, how can they justify confiscating the labor of others upon the land?

Well, under AnCap, ultimately the justification is that they entered into that arrangement voluntarily. They chose to give X portion of their labor for the ability to keep Y portion. If they're happy with those portions, who are we to say they can't do that? It's essentially wage labor, just with some unusual wage terms.

I meant that you gain the products of the labor of anyone who wants to work on the land while you own it.  Whether you hire them as as employees, sharecroppers, or renters the work that would have gained them the land if you hadn't been there goes to making you richer instead.

True. But, again, you're paying them, yes? Essentially, they're renting their labor to you. And as long as they're happy with those terms, I'm not going to step in and prevent them.

[Topazan]

It doesn't matter whose effort it is. If I buy a car, so long as I pay fair market value for the car, why does it matter whose effort made the car valuable? Sure, someone mined the steel, someone invented the automobile, someone manufactured the engine, and so on. But if I acquired it at market value, it's all my car. Once you realize that this argument applies to *everything*, not just land, it quickly falls apart.

And only land ownership will make it possible for people to capture the value of improvements to land. Say I want to build something that will go on one piece of land but increase the value of a number of surrounding pieces of land. In the absence of full private ownership, there's no way I can capture the value this project will add. However, if all that land is privately owned, I can go to each owner and get them to agree to share with me some of the increased value. I may not get them all to agree, but at least I have a chance. Without private land ownership, there's no way at all I can get a share of the value I'm creating.

Everyone involved in making the car has been paid for their work, and this is reflected in the price you pay for the finished product.  The people who made your LA land rise in value, which is basically every productive member of the community, have not been paid for what they did for you.  You're making money off of their work without necessarily giving anything in return.

If you go back and read the rest of this thread, you'll find that the issue of improvements has been discussed in depth.  You do understand that the discussion is about geoism, not communism right?

For the sake of discussion, can you name a real world example of an improvement to surrounding lands where the builder captures the value of the positive externalities in that way?

The solution is simple -- if you buy land at fair market value, it's yours. All of the land on Earth has an owner right now, though admittedly some have acquired it unfairly. But we're not going to give America back to the Indians. So we have now what we have. Pretty much everyone who owns land today has acquired it at fair market value anyway. And it would be truly bizarre to treat some present-day landowners different from others.

If you want to talk about what the rules should be for the Moon or if we build underwater cities, we can. But most land is already owned by people who, by and large, paid fair market value for it. So unless you want to try to right ancient injustices (which is basically impossible since the victims are dead) people own what they own.

How does that work if the person you bought it from wasn't the rightful owner?  If I pay fair market value to to some guy I know, can I take your house?

If "That's the way things are" is enough to justify something in your mind, then there's no need for you to discuss anything at all.  You should be happy with the current system, because people own what they own, and if someone changes that system you should be happy with what they change it to, because that will be the way things are.

Well, at this point, effectively all land is claimed, everywhere. so, I sort of have to concede this point. Land can be purchased, however. Undeveloped land is typically much cheaper than developed, and land outside the "city" likewise tends toward the cheaper end. So expansion is still possible, often at much lower cost than renting or buying a place inside the city.

Yes, the land will be sold for no more than people are willing to pay for it.  As I said, this doesn't affect the morality, one way or the other.

Well, I see your point, but I'm trying to allow for those who like nature in it's natural state (for instance, people who would like a hunting preserve) to do so without having to murder any who come in, and without enabling the creation of a state (which any form of geoism would eventually do). Do you have a better solution for those who would like to preserve a patch of nature from development? Would breaking a trail through the patch of land suffice as enough improvement to allow for ownership?

Under the homesteading principle as I understand it, wouldn't breaking a trail give you ownership of the trail and nothing else?

I said I could understand the homesteading argument, that doesn't mean I agree with it as a system.  It doesn't achieve the goal of allowing a person to only claim their labor.  It gives them their labor, and the land, which is something entirely different.

Well, under AnCap, ultimately the justification is that they entered into that arrangement voluntarily. They chose to give X portion of their labor for the ability to keep Y portion. If they're happy with those portions, who are we to say they can't do that? It's essentially wage labor, just with some unusual wage terms.

Yes, but the question is whether the advantage over them that society has given you in terms of land rights is justified.

True. But, again, you're paying them, yes? Essentially, they're renting their labor to you. And as long as they're happy with those terms, I'm not going to step in and prevent them.

More accurately, it's a collaborative effort to produce something of value.  They're providing the labor, you're providing the land, and the capital depends on your arrangement.  Even if you provide the capital, ownership of the land will allow you to negotiate for a larger share of the finished product than the capital alone would.

Last year, you worked the land, got 100% of the profit, and the land itself as your reward.  This year, others are doing the exact same work, but only getting say 30% of the profit, and no land.  The only difference between you and them was you got there first, but what a difference it's going to make in your life.

Well, it's a valid point, every system has it's flaws. That people can sometimes collude to make more profit is one of them, in any market system. Geoism is no different, it just has different flaws.

I absolutely agree.  This has been an excellent conversation.

[myrkul]

Everyone involved in making the car has been paid for their work, and this is reflected in the price you pay for the finished product.  The people who made your LA land rise in value, which is basically every productive member of the community, have not been paid for what they did for you.  You're making money off of their work without necessarily giving anything in return.

But what makes LA land so valuable? In part it's demand, but it's also all the services and conveniences located nearby. The same can be said of every city. The people providing those services and conveniences are compensated for providing them, and charge a rate that they're happy with. In other words, they're fairly compensated for increasing the value of land in LA.

How does that work if the person you bought it from wasn't the rightful owner?  If I pay fair market value to to some guy I know, can I take your house?

Obviously not, unless that guy you know is a geoist.

Yes, the land will be sold for no more than people are willing to pay for it.  As I said, this doesn't affect the morality, one way or the other.

Aside from the fact that you can no longer claim that the land owners have an "unfair advantage" over those who don't own land, since those without can simply buy the land from them.

Under the homesteading principle as I understand it, wouldn't breaking a trail give you ownership of the trail and nothing else?

That's where our dispute seems to lie... in the gray area between getting the trail and nothing else, and getting some portion of the forest around it. My position is that allowing someone to claim - and therefore to claim any damages to - a piece of mostly unchanged land is the best way to protect that land from harm. Sure, you could require that you drastically alter land in order to own it, and we'd end up with parking lots instead of forests. That's not a result I'm willing to accept. This does allow speculators to put in a minimal amount of work, and if the market is favorable, profit greatly, but given the options of encouraging people to claim pristine land and forcing them to drastically alter it, I'll take the speculators over the parking lots.

I said I could understand the homesteading argument, that doesn't mean I agree with it as a system.  It doesn't achieve the goal of allowing a person to only claim their labor.  It gives them their labor, and the land, which is something entirely different.

In homesteading, you are taking something from nature, and changing it into a man-made thing. If you carve a block of granite into a statue, you have not only the result of your labor, but a mass of granite, as well. Technically, the result of your labor is all on the workshop floor. What you are selling is what's left over. Is that unfair?

Yes, but the question is whether the advantage over them that society has given you in terms of land rights is justified.

They have the same rights to land as I do, and if they can come up with a purchase price I will accept, I will gladly sell to them.

True. But, again, you're paying them, yes? Essentially, they're renting their labor to you. And as long as they're happy with those terms, I'm not going to step in and prevent them.

More accurately, it's a collaborative effort to produce something of value.  They're providing the labor, you're providing the land, and the capital depends on your arrangement.  Even if you provide the capital, ownership of the land will allow you to negotiate for a larger share of the finished product than the capital alone would.

And here is where collective bargaining comes in. I'm not sure how many other market anarchists are as pro-union as I am, but I do know that a labor union (not a trade union - if you want, I can explain the difference) is the proper response to the sort of situation you're discussing.

Last year, you worked the land, got 100% of the profit, and the land itself as your reward.  This year, others are doing the exact same work, but only getting say 30% of the profit, and no land.  The only difference between you and them was you got there first, but what a difference it's going to make in your life.

Well, again, this situation is sort of moot, since I'd be buying the land, nowadays. But regardless, if I can do the work myself and get 100% of the profit, I most likely will. It's only once I've expanded beyond the ability to do all the work myself that I start hiring people to do some of it, and in practice, the split will most likely be the other way around. They'll be doing the farmwork, and getting 70% (between them) of the profit, and I'll be doing all the annoying paperwork and getting 30%.

[Fjordbit]

Also, It's telling that you chose this to respond to, rather than attempting to refute my previous statement.

Meh, it's actually not that telling. I did respond to it, but it appears I pasted over it when adding in my response to Topazan. Meanwhile, I included that part because it was embedded in Topazan's post and thought it warranted a clarification. Having parts of my responses accidentally deleted seems like a risk I'm taking when responding to more than one person at a time.

I'm going to summarize the response quickly because I kind of don't feel like typing it all out again. Ancaps can't mix into anarchogeos because an anarchogeo could hold the rent on unimproved land and then an ancap would come along and improve it and claim it's "theirs", creating a conflict.

And I still don't see the point about the importance of tolerance. Ancaps are wrong about their model of property, so I don't see why we need to respect it.

@Fjordbit - So, your contention is that we only own the physical forms of the products of our labor, and not their value?  "Thanks spell-checking my book.  I can't pay you, so just copy down the words you fixed for your own use."  "Thanks for the lifesaving surgery, as payment have a cadaver that's had the same operation."

This isn't my contention and so I can't really respond to it because it's not my position. Also both of these examples would fall into contracts enforcement and don't seem to me to be part of a conversation about property. If you contracted with the doctor to provide money for surgery, then I don't see how you would fulfill that with a

But what makes LA land so valuable? In part it's demand, but it's also all the services and conveniences located nearby. The same can be said of every city. The people providing those services and conveniences are compensated for providing them, and charge a rate that they're happy with. In other words, they're fairly compensated for increasing the value of land in LA.

So when a person sells their homestead, they need to give a cut of the profit to the services and conveniences located nearby? How does that work to create fair compensation?

The value you are talking about was not made by the land owner, so there's no moral argument for them to have a claim to it. Meanwhile, if someone wants exclusive use of that land, they would need to compensate everyone for that use to have a moral claim to that exclusion. The inherent value in the land causes the rent to be bid higher, giving society more benefit.

[myrkul]

I'm going to summarize the response quickly because I kind of don't feel like typing it all out again. Ancaps can't mix into anarchogeos because an anarchogeo could hold the rent on unimproved land and then an ancap would come along and improve it and claim it's "theirs", creating a conflict.

And I still don't see the point about the importance of tolerance. Ancaps are wrong about their model of property, so I don't see why we need to respect it.

If the geo has marked out the unimproved land as already owned, the Ancap would leave it alone. That's what I've been talking about. However, if the AnCap had marked out unimproved land as owned, the geo would demand rent from him.

Since deriving profit from something you had no hand in making is immoral, It's clear to me that the geo would be in the wrong here.

But what makes LA land so valuable? In part it's demand, but it's also all the services and conveniences located nearby. The same can be said of every city. The people providing those services and conveniences are compensated for providing them, and charge a rate that they're happy with. In other words, they're fairly compensated for increasing the value of land in LA.

So when a person sells their homestead, they need to give a cut of the profit to the services and conveniences located nearby? How does that work to create fair compensation?

How did you get from "they're already fairly compensated for increasing the value of land in LA." to "when a person sells their homestead, they need to give a cut of the profit to the services and conveniences located nearby"?

[Fjordbit]

If the geo has marked out the unimproved land as already owned, the Ancap would leave it alone.

It's not marked out. It's just recorded as being paid rent on. An example could be a cloud based registrar of GPS coordinates.

However, if the AnCap had marked out unimproved land as owned, the geo would demand rent from him.

I think you are misunderstanding. The geo doesn't demand rent. You don't have to pay any rent on that land. You just can't expect an exclusive use of the land, though, and thus cannot use force to prevent people from coming on the land and using it. Also, if someone else rightfully rents the land, you can be evicted. So, as you can see, the choice to pay rent is voluntary, and the amount of rent paid is set by the free market.

Since deriving profit from something you had no hand in making is immoral, It's clear to me that the geo would be in the wrong here.

This doesn't apply.

But what makes LA land so valuable? In part it's demand, but it's also all the services and conveniences located nearby. The same can be said of every city. The people providing those services and conveniences are compensated for providing them, and charge a rate that they're happy with. In other words, they're fairly compensated for increasing the value of land in LA.

So when a person sells their homestead, they need to give a cut of the profit to the services and conveniences located nearby? How does that work to create fair compensation?

How did you get from "they're already fairly compensated for increasing the value of land in LA." to "when a person sells their homestead, they need to give a cut of the profit to the services and conveniences located nearby"?

You said that all the services and conveniences located nearby is what gives the land the value, and that "they" are fairly compensated for increasing the value of land in L.A. If it were fair, then the actual people who created those services and conveniences would get that value, not a guy who sat on an empty lot with a fence around it for 50 years.

[myrkul]

If the geo has marked out the unimproved land as already owned, the Ancap would leave it alone.

It's not marked out. It's just recorded as being paid rent on. An example could be a cloud based registrar of GPS coordinates.

That could cause some confusion, but as long as it's well known that that registrar is used in that area, It would probably be OK (smart AnCaps check registries, too). If there were some confusion, and the AnCap moved in on the geo, the geo would be compensated once it was brought to light.

However, if the AnCap had marked out unimproved land as owned, the geo would demand rent from him.

I think you are misunderstanding. The geo doesn't demand rent. You don't have to pay any rent on that land. You just can't expect an exclusive use of the land, though, and thus cannot use force to prevent people from coming on the land and using it. Also, if someone else rightfully rents the land, you can be evicted. So, as you can see, the choice to pay rent is voluntary, and the amount of rent paid is set by the free market.

See, an AnCap who has marked out land as owned expects exclusive use, and the right to use force to defend that exclusive use. In order for the AnCap to get that, the geo would demand rent. Worse, if someone completely unrelated to either party came along and paid that geo more for the use of that land, the AnCap would lose the exclusive use, and the right to defend it, at least in the geo's eyes.

Since deriving profit from something you had no hand in making is immoral, It's clear to me that the geo would be in the wrong here.

This doesn't apply.

Bullshit it doesn't. If the geo demands payment for something that he had nothing to do with the creation of, that is to say, the "rent" on unimproved land, then they are clearly expecting something for nothing. That places them solidly in the wrong. Your own philosophy states that you cannot create, and therefore cannot derive profit from, the land itself. So how do you reconcile that with demanding unearned profit (pretty much the definition of "rent") from unimproved land, which you acknowledge you did not create?

But what makes LA land so valuable? In part it's demand, but it's also all the services and conveniences located nearby. The same can be said of every city. The people providing those services and conveniences are compensated for providing them, and charge a rate that they're happy with. In other words, they're fairly compensated for increasing the value of land in LA.

So when a person sells their homestead, they need to give a cut of the profit to the services and conveniences located nearby? How does that work to create fair compensation?

How did you get from "they're already fairly compensated for increasing the value of land in LA." to "when a person sells their homestead, they need to give a cut of the profit to the services and conveniences located nearby"?

You said that all the services and conveniences located nearby is what gives the land the value, and that "they" are fairly compensated for increasing the value of land in L.A. If it were fair, then the actual people who created those services and conveniences would get that value, not a guy who sat on an empty lot with a fence around it for 50 years.

Let me repeat: They (the providers of goods, services and conveniences) are compensated for the provision of those goods, services, and conveniences. Since those goods, services, and conveniences are part (aside from demand) of what increases value of land in a city, the people providing them have already been compensated for the increase in land value (which they also benefit from).

[Fjordbit]

That could cause some confusion, but as long as it's well known that that registrar is used in that area, It would probably be OK (smart AnCaps check registries, too). If there were some confusion, and the AnCap moved in on the geo, the geo would be compensated once it was brought to light.

So no actual improvement to the land is necessary. In an ancap world, just some kind of simple registration is needed. Why wouldn't all the land be taken up in an instant with a computer program?

See, an AnCap who has marked out land as owned expects exclusive use, and the right to use force to defend that exclusive use.

See, the ancap is the one who uses force to keep people off the land he doesn't own. It's the equivalent of establishing a small state. I understand that people like free things and so taking land that doesn't belong to anyone has it's appeal, but "I want free stuff" isn't a moral argument for the use of force.

Bullshit it doesn't. If the geo demands payment for something that he had nothing to do with the creation of

Geo's don't demand rent. I covered that in my last comment. If you want to get something (e.g. the exclusive right to some land), then yeah, it ain't free. Why would I give you the exclusive right to that land without some compensation? By your exclusion, you are depriving me of something.

Let me repeat: They (the providers of goods, services and conveniences) are compensated for the provision of those goods, services, and conveniences. Since those goods, services, and conveniences are part (aside from demand) of what increases value of land in a city, the people providing them have already been compensated for the increase in land value (which they also benefit from).

They get some benefit, but it's not in proportion to their effort. A guy with a 5 acre empty lot is going to get a lot more benefit than the guy with the .1 acre coffee shop. You used the word "fair" with regard to the compensation in your initial post, and there's nothing fair about it.

[myrkul]

That could cause some confusion, but as long as it's well known that that registrar is used in that area, It would probably be OK (smart AnCaps check registries, too). If there were some confusion, and the AnCap moved in on the geo, the geo would be compensated once it was brought to light.

So no actual improvement to the land is necessary. In an ancap world, just some kind of simple registration is needed. Why wouldn't all the land be taken up in an instant with a computer program?

Again, if I required "improvement" to land, we'd get parking lots instead of forests. I don't view that as an optimal solution. As I said, claiming land without at least marking it out will probably cause some confusion. Sort of like paying someone for the Brooklyn Bridge... How are you sure they can even give you the exclusive use of that land? The AnCap would likely pass on the "claimed" land out of courtesy, likewise with the compensation, but if he pushed it, paying some random stranger and putting numbers into a computer don't grant you ownership.

See, an AnCap who has marked out land as owned expects exclusive use, and the right to use force to defend that exclusive use.

See, the ancap is the one who uses force to keep people off the land he doesn't own. It's the equivalent of establishing a small state. I understand that people like free things and so taking land that doesn't belong to anyone has it's appeal, but "I want free stuff" isn't a moral argument for the use of force.

No, it's not. And if the argument were "I want free stuff," I would concede the point. But it's not. The argument is "this stuff is mine, because I made it." Taking land that doesn't belong to someone is fine. Trying to take land that does belong to someone is not. That's when the force comes in.

Bullshit it doesn't. If the geo demands payment for something that he had nothing to do with the creation of

Geo's don't demand rent. I covered that in my last comment. If you want to get something (e.g. the exclusive right to some land), then yeah, it ain't free. Why would I give you the exclusive right to that land without some compensation? By your exclusion, you are depriving me of something.

You have to have it in order for me to deprive you of it. Since it's not your land, my claiming it deprives you of nothing.

Let me repeat: They (the providers of goods, services and conveniences) are compensated for the provision of those goods, services, and conveniences. Since those goods, services, and conveniences are part (aside from demand) of what increases value of land in a city, the people providing them have already been compensated for the increase in land value (which they also benefit from).

They get some benefit, but it's not in proportion to their effort. A guy with a 5 acre empty lot is going to get a lot more benefit than the guy with the .1 acre coffee shop. You used the word "fair" with regard to the compensation in your initial post, and there's nothing fair about it.

They think it's fair. Otherwise they would increase their prices. If they think it's fair, then who am I (or you) to say otherwise?

[Topazan]

I've mostly stopped posting in this thread because I felt like I've said most of what I have to say, but a few thoughts.

First, myrkul is right that a geoist system could exist within a private property system, if for no other reason than a land owner can impose any rules he wants on his tenants.  The issue is that the geoist would believe that the AnCaps are claiming ownership over something no one has the right to own.  Imagine if the AnCaps encountered a group that practiced slavery.  The slavers might say, "Well, you can give your slaves freedom and fair compensation for labor if you want, but what gives you the right to tell us what to do with our slaves?"  I'm not comparing land ownership to slavery, I'm simply pointing out that a values dissonance issue exists.

Second, under ideal conditions, if the property owners are numerous and diverse enough to always be in competition, the a private property system isn't that bad.  But, consider that today the world's tyrants claim little other authority other than ownership of their countries.  Why can't you have an AnCap society today?  Because you have no place to build it.  There are many impoverished countries in the world, but it's extremely rare for them to sell their sovereignty over any part of their land for any price.  You're stuck living under the rule of a government, because it has land and you don't.  What check would exist on a landlords power in an AnCap society?  What distinguishes a large landholder from a national government?

Someone mentioned about all the property currently being owned.  First, why would you respect current property ownership after a transition to AnCap, knowing that much of it was gained unjustly?  Second, as the book myrkul linked pointed out, you would need to distribute government property somehow.

[JoelKatz]

Someone mentioned about all the property currently being owned.  First, why would you respect current property ownership after a transition to AnCap, knowing that much of it was gained unjustly?

Because there's really no way to do any better. You can't right past injustices because most of the victims are dead. A transition would be disruptive enough without such a massive change in ownership, and the vast majority of people who own property today acquired it at fair market value.

Second, as the book myrkul linked pointed out, you would need to distribute government property somehow.

Right, that's one of the issues with transition to an AnCap society. Most likely, you'd need to auction most of it to cover the costs of transitioning. I don't think anyone can predict in advance how to transition to an AnCap society or what such a transition would be like. It will depend enormously on what technology is available at the time and how much people are willing to do and when. Land not substantially improved could be opened to homesteading. It's value would be very low anyway.

[myrkul]

I'm not comparing land ownership to slavery, I'm simply pointing out that a values dissonance issue exists.

Indeed it does. The core problem is the idea on one side that land, in it's natural state, belongs to no one, and on the other, that it belongs to everyone. One is compatible with only owning the results of your labor, the other is not.

What check would exist on a landlords power in an AnCap society?  What distinguishes a large landholder from a national government?

Well, for one, size. You'd need to own tremendous amounts of land to come anywhere near the level of control of a national government. No person has ever come close to owning that much land, and the only non-government entity that ever has is the Catholic church. Which, effectively, is a government. 

For another, the landlord his held to the same standards as the tenants. If the landlord pulled the kinds of things that governments do to their citizens, he'd be up to his neck in arbitration.

Someone mentioned about all the property currently being owned.  First, why would you respect current property ownership after a transition to AnCap, knowing that much of it was gained unjustly?  Second, as the book myrkul linked pointed out, you would need to distribute government property somehow.

Well, most current property ownership was gained justly, by paying fair market value to a willing seller. Most of the unjustly gained land is in government hands, so the two questions are really just one.

And the answer to that question is that for already occupied government land (military bases, offices, etc) would pretty much just go to the people currently using it. Unoccupied land would be open for homesteading. I imagine park rangers would claim most of it.