Georgism/Geoism and the Land Value Tax

[myrkul]

Read it again. You altered the land. You get to keep that land, even after the ore is gone. The ore, you can't sell in it's current state. You must dig it up.

In a private property system you CAN sell the ore in its current state.  That's the problem.  Homesteading gives you far more than the value of your labor.

No you can't. You can sell the land. Or you can rent access to the mine. But you can't sell the ore while it's still in the ground. Whoever taught you that should be shot.

This is demonstrably false. Land values are subject to market forces, just like any other commodity.

Then, please, I invite you to demonstrate it.

See for yourself: http://www.realtor.com/

A fine argument for learning a skill, isn't it?

Yes, in the sense that getting whipped by the slave-driver is a fine argument for working faster.

Ahh, but nobody is obligated to pay for unskilled labor. Any strong back can compete... perhaps even out-compete you. Learn a skill, and you can command higher wages.

I see. So, I can go around improving land, expending my energy for... nothing? Sounds like a good plan. Great incentive. "We won't charge you."

Why would you want to go around improving random land, and why would "we" want you to?  Either register a claim and pay the community or hire yourself out to someone who has.

So, my choices are, Be a slave to everyone, or be a slave to one person. Hmm... Not seeing how your system is fairer. And keep in mind that any argument that you use to say that I am not a slave to the "someone who has" applies equally well to capitalism, but there is no rebuttal for the slavery to all.

Everyone. Just like other forms of socialism, you're stealing from everyone to give to everyone, which necessitates a robber class, which will soak up some percentage of the take, leaving everyone (except the robber class) poorer than if you just left them alone.

Landowners are a robber class that steals from everyone to give to themselves.  We're just taking back what's ours.

Said like a true socialist. Marx would be proud.

You assume that government "sovereignty" is legitimate. It is not, since drawing lines on a map does not grant ownership. If it did, I could easily draw on my map that I was no longer part of the US, and they would have to recognize it. No, the only way they have any claim over the land in the US is by force of arms, which is inherently illegitimate.

So... if they built a fence along the borders would you recognize it?  If the government dropped their claim of sovereignty, who would it go to?  You never had it, so you can't be the rightful owner by your logic.

Why do you keep saying this? I have, legitimately, purchased a house and land. I expended my labor to gain land. Please, stop using this falsehood. It's not helping your case.

What does the government do that a landlord cannot?  Collect taxes?  Landlords collect rent.  Make laws?  Landlords make rules concerning their property.  Use force?  Once the landlord declares you a trespasser, they can do that.  Heck, what would stop them from making you sign a contract giving them the power to use force at will?  At the end of the day, land ownership is backed up by force of arms.  In a system of AnCap with private land ownership, landlords would just be governments by another name.

Wrong. Governments claim sole right of initiatory force. Under AnCap, no person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. What would stop them from making you sign a contract giving them the power to use force at will? If you mean as a condition of living there, nothing, except the unwillingness of most people to live under such rules. He'll get no business, no matter how low his rates, and someone less prone to violence will buy the land when he goes broke (as he will, if that's his sole means of income). Nobody forces you to do business with a landlord. The government, on the other hand, forces you to do business with them.

[1715223960]

1715223960

[1715223960]

1715223960

[1715223960]

1715223960

[FirstAscent]

No, I'm saying that owning natural resources does not steal them from those who never had them to begin with.

This is where you're provably wrong. Have you forgotten your lessons on ecosystem services? Owning land does not necessarily exempt you from decimating the land to the point that the geographical regions outside the boundaries of the parcel suffer. Just as a drink of water from an owner's parcel makes a tiny dent in the landowner's resources, so does a change to the landowner's land make a tiny dent in the ecosystem beyond it.

But in fact, there are regulations and stipulations which define what one can and cannot do on their land, because ownership is never exactly what you think it is in a world of nations. If you disagree, then you don't understand what ownership is within a state. However, those regulations and stipulations aren't necessarily adequate - fault the governing bodies which enforce those regulations and stipulations.

So, in conclusion, owning natural resources, except for pure conservation motives ala the actions conducted by the likes of Doug Thompkins or Yvon Chouinard, land owners do change (i.e. "improve") their land, which means, in general, a decrease in ecosystem services provided to the surrounding region, and thus, is indeed theft from those who never owned the land in the first place.

[myrkul]

So, in conclusion, owning natural resources, except for pure conservation motives ala the actions conducted by the likes of Doug Thompkins or Yvon Chouinard, land owners do change (i.e. "improve") their land, which means, in general, a decrease in ecosystem services provided to the surrounding region, and thus, is indeed theft from those who never owned the land in the first place.

"Improvements" such as irrigating the desert, allowing them to plant food crops for hundreds, even thousands of people? You mean theft like that?

[FirstAscent]

So, in conclusion, owning natural resources, except for pure conservation motives ala the actions conducted by the likes of Doug Thompkins or Yvon Chouinard, land owners do change (i.e. "improve") their land, which means, in general, a decrease in ecosystem services provided to the surrounding region, and thus, is indeed theft from those who never owned the land in the first place.

"Improvements" such as irrigating the desert, allowing them to plant food crops for hundreds, even thousands of people? You mean theft like that?

Those are some "improvements" among many types of "improvements". Among those agricultural "improvements" you have mentioned, many are rather horrific, many are neutral, and some are beneficial, when total net value is summed.

[FirstAscent]

Since you have forgotten some of your lessons, let's review. That means you, myrkul.

Some of the following material is derived from posts I have written in the past, but I think it will have greater effect if I merge it together here with a few edits and additions. Please read it through thoroughly.

Ever heard of the Spotted Owl and the controversy surrounding it? What was all that about?

The Spotted Owl is a top level predator in the northwest. It was declared an umbrella species (otherwise known as a keystone or flagship species), and listed as endangered. The timber industry had an issue with this. Here's why. The purpose of listing the Spotted Owl as an umbrella species was because in order to preserve the Spotted Owl population, the old growth forests in the northwest would have to be preserved as well. That meant the timber industry would not be allowed to harvest existing old growth forests.

Why are old growth forests important? Because they offer what are called ecosystem services. Secondary growth forests do not offer all those ecosystem services, nor at the same level that the old growth forests do. And that's it in a nutshell. It has been demonstrated that the Spotted Owl can live in secondary growth forests, but it cannot viably breed in secondary growth forests.

Thus, species such as the Spotted Owl are declared umbrella species to act as a protective umbrella for their respective environments as a way to protect those environments in perpetuity, because once they're all gone, the possibility of regaining all those ecosystem services that those ecosystems provide is pretty much nil.

Biodiversity, it's very definition, implies diversity, which arises from the existence of thousands, tens of thousands of species within any given ecosystem. This then results in the ecosystem being able to provide its services, known collectively as ecosystem services. The goal is to protect biodiversity by protecting ecosystems. A general technique for doing so is to declare a top level species within its respective ecosystem as endangered (because it is endangered or will become extinct if its ecosystem is destroyed) as an umbrella species. The ecosystem is then preserved under the umbrella of the umbrella species. This protects biodiversity.

Myrkul provided an example of relocating the Scimitar Oryx to a Texan hunting preserve as an example of species preservation, but it is not a case of protecting biodiversity.

As long as we don't disrupt natural ecosystems, they will provide everything listed below:

- Freshwater supply and flood control
- Generation and maintenance of soils
- Ocean flood protection
- Natural pest control
- Amelioration of the weather
- The cycling of nutrients
- Pollination of plants

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, published in 2005, breaks it down like this:

Supporting Services:

- Nutrient cycling
- Soil formation
- Primary production
- Preservation of genetic resources

Regulating services:

- Climate amelioration
- Flood control
- Agricultural pest control
- Water purification

Provisioning services:

- Food
- Timber and fiber
- Fresh water
- Fuel

Cultural services:

- Esthetic
- Spiritual
- Educational
- Recreational

Other disruptive effects to the ecosystem services enumerated above include harvesting resources (collateral damage), toxic waste, atmospheric pollution, garbage waste, over harvesting (fish), pesticides, noise, etc.

What disrupts the above?

Reduction in the number of top level predators. Top level predators, such as raptors, wolves, cats, etc. regulate the ecosystem by preventing overgrazing of vegetation, which plays a role in providing habitat to the smaller organisms, all the way down to the microscopic level, which in turn plays a role in nutrient cycling, water purification, soil formation, etc. In other words, top level predators ultimately affect the health of the entire ecosystem. This process, where top level species affect the environment as a cascading effect are known collectively as trophic cascades.

As an example, let's examine the case of wolves. Numerous species of wolves were eradicated in the twentieth century (by cattle ranchers, incidentally). As it turns out, it was determined that they played a role within the dynamics of the ecosystems. Their elimination resulted in a deleterious effect on the ecosystem services, due to the removal of a trophic cascade effect.

When in the presence of wolves, ungulates generally do not browse in riparian zones. Riparian zones are the areas of rich vegetation along the banks of streams, creeks and rivers. The reason ungulates do not browse in such areas when wolves are present is because their escape route is hindered by the slopes of the river bank, the body of water itself, and the denser vegetation. When wolves are removed, ungulates in general decimate the vegetation in these riparian zones, which in turn results in habitat loss for numerous species, typically beginning with rodents, and cascading all the way down to the microscopic level, where numerous species exist within the soil. This loss of habitat within the riparian zones results in a huge loss of ecosystem services, including nutrient cycling, soil formation, flood control and water purification

Edge effects are another disrupting process to ecosystems and the ecosystem services they provide. Typically, property ownership is the cause. The fracturing of an ecosystem disrupts its viability, by inhibiting migration, reducing territorial area needed by top level predators (see above), and this ultimately reduces biodiversity, which reduces genetic information, a resource required for medicine, material science, engineering, computer science, etc.

Edge effects are a direct result of ecosystem fracturing, which will be defined and discussed. There is a whole cascade of effects and interrelated issues that apply here. They are:

- The importance of wildlife corridors
- The dangers of ignorance
- Exploitation via corporations
- Lack of regulation
- Solutions via private enterprise
- Habitat loss
- Information loss
- Bioproductivity loss
- Natural capital
- Water quality
- Trophic cascades
- Policies

The list goes on. And on.

The whole substrate upon which humanity, society, and life depend on begin in the soil and water (essentially our planet), as nourished by the incoming sunlight from above.

Here's a thought for you: the very complex systems which naturally occur within the soil and above the soil define everything we have to support ourselves and they define everything we have available to educate ourselves (outside cosmology and related fields). There is more going on here than you think. Humanity thus far has been built from those systems, but humanity itself is also depleting, fracturing (and thus destroying) the very systems which allowed it to come this far.

Edge effects: What are they? Imagine a parcel of land that is fairly large and of a particular shape, mostly undisturbed. Let's say it's unspoiled rainforest. We'll begin with a circle 100 miles in diameter.

The circle: A circle 100 miles in diameter has an edge that is 314 miles long. It's area is a little more than 7,500 miles. The ratio of area/edge is 7,500/314 which equals about 24.

The fractal shape: A fractal shape with an area of 7,500 miles but with a ragged edge that is 1,000 miles long has a ratio of area/edge of 7,500/1,000 which equals 7.5.

Among the two shapes described above, each say being a rainforest ecosystem, the circle will generally be healthier and more viable. What does this mean? The circle, will in general, be richer in all of the following:

- Number of species
- Lower extinction rate
- More nutrients within the soil
- Lesser vulnerability to drought, heat, cold, etc.
- More information, complexity and potential knowledge to be discovered within
- Greater productivity within: (i.e ability to nourish, support and grow)
- Ability to support larger fauna

A circle was used above as an example. One could just as easily substitute a square instead and get similar results. Therefore, consider a square 100 miles on a side. It has a ratio of area/edge of 10,000/400 which equals 25.

Assuming that square contains rainforest (but it could just as easily be another type of ecosystem), let's now fracture it. We'll turn it into a checkerboard of 64 black and white squares. Black are rainforest squares. White are squares burned to remove the trees, and then tilled for agriculture.

Our total area of rainforest within the checkerboard is now half what it was. The original square contained 10,000 square miles of rainforest. It now contains 5,000 square miles of rainforest. But look at the change in rainforest edges. The original square had only 400 miles of rainforest edge. The checkerboard has 1,600 miles of rainforest edge.

And so we can get a sense of the difference between these two extents of land. Recall that the unspoiled square had 10,000 square miles of rainforest and total edges measuring 400 miles with a ratio of 25. Look at the ratio of the fractured checkerboard to get a sense of how less rich its potential is. It's ratio is 5,000/1,600 which equals 3.125.

Compare the two numbers: 25 vs. 3.125.

What are some cases which cause edge effects?

Repurposing of land: Examples include agriculture, urban and suburban sprawl, etc.

Clearcutting: Clearcutting by the timber industry creates edge effects. Make no mistake about it - the ecosystem has been changed, and replanting of trees will not revert the area back to the original ecosystem in a period equal to the time it takes for the newly planted trees to mature. The original forest was an old growth forest, and when the newly planted trees finally mature, the resulting forest will be a secondary growth forest, which does not provide the same environment as the original old growth forest.

Roads: Going back to the circle example, if a road is placed through the center, then an edge effect is created. Depending on the type of road and how busy it is, the effect is dramatic. Essentially, you end up with two areas, each half the area of the original circle, and each area having an edge length not much less than the original circle. This is one of the reasons (among many) why there is such opposition to the idea of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It's not just the idea of potential damage from oil spills (which is real), but the road systems which would need to be built to access the enterprise.

Fences: Land left in its natural state, but fenced, also creates an edge effect. A very damaging example would be the fence proposed along the U.S./Mexico border by certain politicians.

[Topazan]

Ahh, but nobody is obligated to pay for unskilled labor.

Laborers wouldn't need them to if they weren't the only source of land to work.  The homesteaders supported themselves off the land doing unskilled labor, why shouldn't the next generation be able to do that?

In fact, modern laborers have incredible productivity advantages over the homesteaders: technology, infrastructure, bigger markets.  They can produce probably hundreds of times the amount of wealth that people a few centuries ago could.  They should be living like kings compared to the homesteaders.  Yet, they're often found working pretty much as hard and gaining as mere a subsistence as laborers without these advantages.  Where does the extra wealth go?  To rent.

I think we've been going back and forth long enough about the other topics.  This is not a concession, I just feel it's time we moved on.  We need a fresh perspective.  FirstAscent, what do you think about geoism?

[myrkul]

Since you have forgotten some of your lessons, let's review. That means you, myrkul.

Wow, that was a lot of text that I didn't read at all. If you are bound and determined to "teach" me, you know where to do it. Run along now. You can copy and paste, if you like, I'll read it when it's in the right spot. You were supposed to stop stalking me.

Ahh, but nobody is obligated to pay for unskilled labor.

Laborers wouldn't need them to if they weren't the only source of land to work.  The homesteaders supported themselves off the land doing unskilled labor, why shouldn't the next generation be able to do that?

They can. I believe your complaint was that that was all they could do. So now, you want the second generation to benefit even more than the first did? Tsk.

[FirstAscent]

Wow, that was a lot of text that I didn't read at all. If you are bound and determined to "teach" me, you know where to do it. Run along now. You can copy and paste, if you like, I'll read it when it's in the right spot. You were supposed to stop stalking me.

Whenever you show your ignorance about land and resources (this thread, for one), then the text which I just posted is definitely in the right spot. And I never made any claim about not talking to you. Rather it was you who was supposed to put me on ignore. Seems you can't though.

[FirstAscent]

FirstAscent, what do you think about geoism?

What is the best online text (not video) introduction to geoism?

[myrkul]

Wow, that was a lot of text that I didn't read at all. If you are bound and determined to "teach" me, you know where to do it. Run along now. You can copy and paste, if you like, I'll read it when it's in the right spot. You were supposed to stop stalking me.

Whenever you show your ignorance about land and resources (this thread, for one), then the text which I just posted is definitely in the right spot. And I never made any claim about not talking to you. Rather it was you who was supposed to put me on ignore. Seems you can't though.

Stalking. Not talking. You're welcome to discuss anything you want. Just keep the movies to your movie thread, and your propaganda to your propaganda thread.

[Topazan]

They can. I believe your complaint was that that was all they could do. So now, you want the second generation to benefit even more than the first did? Tsk.

No, they can't.  There's no more unowned land for them to homestead.  All they can do is hire themselves out to landowners at low wages, which is another kind of rent.

Yes, the second generation should benefit more.  They may be no more virtuous or deserving than the first, but people should keep the wealth they create.  Because they live in a more developed society, the second generation can produce more wealth for less labor, and they'd get to keep it if it wasn't lost to rent.

What is the best online text (not video) introduction to geoism?

Hm, that's a good question.  I don't know of many other than the ebook of Progress and Poverty.  There really is a need for a catchy introduction that covers the important points.

This is the best I can find after several minutes of googling.  What do you think of that, and what I've said so far in this thread?

[myrkul]

They can. I believe your complaint was that that was all they could do. So now, you want the second generation to benefit even more than the first did? Tsk.

No, they can't.  There's no more unowned land for them to homestead.  All they can do is hire themselves out to landowners at low wages, which is another kind of rent.

They most certainly can support themselves. They support themselves through manual labor, just like the first generation. They even benefit more in that they get to carry away the fruits of this labor in portable (monetary) form, while the first generation was stuck with the literal fruits (and vegetables, etc) of their labor.

I believe your complaint was that they couldn't do much more than support themselves. Considering that was all the first generation could do, I'd say they're better off, even if all they have to offer is a strong back.

[Topazan]

They most certainly can support themselves. They support themselves through manual labor, just like the first generation. They even benefit more in that they get to carry away the fruits of this labor in portable (monetary) form, while the first generation was stuck with the literal fruits (and vegetables, etc) of their labor.

I believe your complaint was that they couldn't do much more than support themselves. Considering that was all the first generation could do, I'd say they're better off, even if all they have to offer is a strong back.

The first generation was entitled to work the land just by the fact of their presence.  If their neighbor wanted to hire them, that was an option too.  The second generation can support themselves only if someone agrees to hire them.  If no one does, they starve.  If the only jobs involve degrading or life-threateningly dangerous conditions, they have no choice but to accept them.  Ironically, the first generation was probably fleeing a society just like this.

There's no reason they have to live in the same or worse conditions as the first generation did.  The society is much more developed, and the productivity of one worker is much increased.  If, like the first generation, the second generation had the choice between working for themselves or working for someone else, they would be in a much stronger position to demand wages that actually reflect the value of their work rather than their desperate circumstances.

Instead, when the development of society improves the productivity of the worker, it is the landowner who gets the lion's share of the increased production.

[FirstAscent]

Wow, that was a lot of text that I didn't read at all. If you are bound and determined to "teach" me, you know where to do it. Run along now. You can copy and paste, if you like, I'll read it when it's in the right spot. You were supposed to stop stalking me.

Whenever you show your ignorance about land and resources (this thread, for one), then the text which I just posted is definitely in the right spot. And I never made any claim about not talking to you. Rather it was you who was supposed to put me on ignore. Seems you can't though.

Stalking. Not talking. You're welcome to discuss anything you want. Just keep the movies to your movie thread, and your propaganda to your propaganda thread.

C'mon dude. You're the one who stalked me in the Freedom thread. And I don't do propaganda. Regarding movies, I only bring them up when you bring them up out of the blue. Like right now. Here's a recommendation for you: The Idiot, by Akira Kurosawa. Great movie. Seriously. Coming off of a marathon of watching Ozu movies with Setsuko Hara, I then watched The Idiot and enjoyed it immensely. It has stars from both Naruse's When a Woman Ascends the Stairs, Mizoguchi's Ugetsu, and Ozu's Equinox Flower.

[FirstAscent]

What is the best online text (not video) introduction to geoism?

Hm, that's a good question.  I don't know of many other than the ebook of Progress and Poverty.  There really is a need for a catchy introduction that covers the important points.

This is the best I can find after several minutes of googling.  What do you think of that, and what I've said so far in this thread?

I will read it. It all sounds interesting.

[myrkul]

If, like the first generation, the second generation had the choice between working for themselves or working for someone else, they would be in a much stronger position to demand wages that actually reflect the value of their work rather than their desperate circumstances.

Ahh, but they do. They can simply buy land. Then they're working for themselves. They may have debt to pay off (or may not, second generation also means inheritance), but they're working for themselves. And anyway, you're arguing a lost cause. right now is way past second generation, and people buy and sell land, and still do just fine. Capitalism, it works, bitches.

Face it, what you propose is Socialism under a new guise, and that never works. It won't work if you add computers, it won't work if you change it from stealing productivity directly to stealing the fruits of that productivity, it won't work no matter what you do to it, because it's a flawed system.

[Topazan]

When did I ever say people don't buy and sell land?  The closest thing I said was that there's very little downward pressure on the price compared to man-made goods.

When people sell land for a higher price they bought it for, without making any improvements, that's a form of rent in the Georgist sense.  There's more than one way to collect rent.  Whatever the method, it's a burden on the producers.

[myrkul]

When did I ever say people don't buy and sell land?  The closest thing I said was that there's very little downward pressure on the price compared to man-made goods.

When people sell land for a higher price they bought it for, without making any improvements, that's a form of rent in the Georgist sense.  There's more than one way to collect rent.  Whatever the method, it's a burden on the producers.

So, instead, you would have a coercive system forcing that burden upon each and every person who has the audacity to own land? Even if he has no intention of selling, or of offering others jobs on that land? Some dude, out in the middle of nowhere in a log cabin owes everyone for the privilege of sleeping under a roof? Fuck that.

[FirstAscent]

This is the best I can find after several minutes of googling.  What do you think of that, and what I've said so far in this thread?

I see pros and cons. It sounds reasonable on the surface. But I haven't followed it before, and so I can't yet render a deeply thought out response. On the one hand, it encourages efficient use of land, which decreases sprawl and waste. But on the other hand, it encourages maximizing profit potential from the land, which can be counter to preserving the ecosystem services it would provide unmolested. In the article you posted, I also wasn't particularly enthusiastic to discover that the sham organization known as the Heartland Institute supports it, given their history of supporting property rights above the health of the planet, and their employment of deceptive propaganda in the process.

In some ways, it almost aligns with the philosophies of Herman Daly, who advocates a steady state economy, where taxes would be levied on that which we don't want: pollution, natural resource extraction, and waste. Geoism, in a sense, is like this, in that it taxes land usage. Use less land, pay less taxes.

The economy is really an organism which takes in raw materials, and through digestion, outputs products and waste. The key is to only take in renewable resources as input, output products, and eliminate the waste output.

[grantbdev]

Less philosophy, I want to hear a debate on how the tax wold actually work, especially collection.