Average Land Rent - Free Land for the average person.

[myrkul]

Any property system is dependent on people accepting your rules.

Indeed. But which set of rules is more fair? "You got here first, so it's yours," or, "I live on the other side of the planet, but you're stealing that land from me, so pay up."

Fallow means unused. If the land was unused, then by definition, they're not using it.

Sometimes, people cultivate fallow land, and then it's not fallow any more.

Right, but you specified that the land was fallow. Not that they were working it. They would indeed have been better off if they were working land they owned, rather than land someone else owned. But they were working someone else's land. So it was not a lack of agricultural ability, but a lack of economic sense that caused their impoverishment. They should have bought land instead of leasing it in exchange for a portion of their crops.

[Anon136]

Any property system is dependent on people accepting your rules.

Indeed. But which set of rules is more fair? "You got here first, so it's yours," or, "I live on the other side of the planet, but you're stealing that land from me, so pay up."

Fallow means unused. If the land was unused, then by definition, they're not using it.

Sometimes, people cultivate fallow land, and then it's not fallow any more.

Right, but you specified that the land was fallow. Not that they were working it. They would indeed have been better off if they were working land they owned, rather than land someone else owned. But they were working someone else's land. So it was not a lack of agricultural ability, but a lack of economic sense that caused their impoverishment. They should have bought land instead of leasing it in exchange for a portion of their crops.

claiming land as your own does impose a cost on other people who now have been denied the opportunity to claim that same land as their own. And really just saying "well i got there first" really isnt a very good argument either Competition of the bad arguments! figure out which one is worse and go with the other.

[myrkul]

claiming land as your own does impose a cost on other people who now have been denied the opportunity to claim that same land as their own.

Missed opportunity is not a cost.

As for the rest, read the Kinsella quote. First appropriation is the only fair way to go about it.

[Topazan]

How much start-up capital do you think the average freedman had?  Even if by some miracle they could find someone to lend them the money, the question remains: what value did the landlord provide in exchange for the money that he's demanding?

You said the land would be fallow without the landlord.  I'm saying it could still be cultivated, possibly even by the same people.

[myrkul]

How much start-up capital do you think the average freedman had?  Even if by some miracle they could find someone to lend them the money, the question remains: what value did the landlord provide in exchange for the money that he's demanding?

Perhaps he cleared it. Perhaps he removed the wild animals that were menacing it. Perhaps he was simply the first to recognize that the land had agricultural value. What value does your Georgeist provide in exchange for the rent he is demanding?

You said the land would be fallow without the landlord.  I'm saying it could still be cultivated, possibly even by the same people.

Nope, You did:

In what way were the sharecroppers in the post war south better off thanks to their landlords than they would have been if that land was fallow?  They'd still be doing the same work except they'd be able to keep their entire crop.

And indeed it could have been cultivated, perhaps, in fact, by those same people now working it. That's not the point. The point is, they weren't working their land. They were working his land. You might even say that they were employed by the land owner to work his land.

[Topazan]

Meh, we've had this conversation many times.  No point in continuing if nothing new is added.

[myrkul]

Meh, we've had this conversation many times.  No point in continuing if nothing new is added.

What a shame. I truly wanted to know what value the Georgeist provides to justify the rent that he is demanding.

If none, and his argument is based simply on the fact that he missed the opportunity to take advantage of the available land, how is that any different than a new bitcoin user being upset about the early adopters having "all the coins"?

[Topazan]

A "Georgist" doesn't provide anything, just like an "anarchist" doesn't.  If you mean the surrounding community, chances are they're the real reason the land has value in the first place.  Remote land is worth very little, land located in developed communities is worth considerably more.  Granted, there's no reason to assume that every member of the community contributed equally.

I consider homesteading a completely arbitrary way of determining land ownership.  I recognize that in some ways considering land communal property is just as arbitrary, but when one conception of property rights leads to stratification and systemic poverty and the other doesn't, I'm inclined towards the one that doesn't.  Land ownership can be and is used to enable tyranny and injustice.  I don't see how that can be disputed.

I've already explained the differences between bitcoin and other land.  Currencies like bitcoin are not a zero-sum game.  No one is prevented from using bitcoin as a medium of exchange, or starting their own crypto-currency, and the wealth it can buy is always growing.

[Anon136]

claiming land as your own does impose a cost on other people who now have been denied the opportunity to claim that same land as their own.

Missed opportunity is not a cost.

As for the rest, read the Kinsella quote. First appropriation is the only fair way to go about it.

I dont think this is a fair criticism. after all in economics speak we do call these this phenomena "opportunity cost" so im pretty sure it is a cost.

With that being said now that i think about it georgism has a regression problem. How is one supposed to acquire the means to bargain with out first appropriating things and how is one supposed to appropriate things if he must first bargain in order to acquire the means to appropriate. I think this sort of chicken and egg problem is the best way to demonstrate the superiority of the homesteading principal.

[myrkul]

A "Georgist" doesn't provide anything, just like an "anarchist" doesn't.  If you mean the surrounding community, chances are they're the real reason the land has value in the first place.  Remote land is worth very little, land located in developed communities is worth considerably more.  Granted, there's no reason to assume that every member of the community contributed equally.

And undeveloped land in the middle of a community contributes nothing to that community, while developed land in the middle of nowhere will often collect a community.

I consider homesteading a completely arbitrary way of determining land ownership.  I recognize that in some ways considering land communal property is just as arbitrary, but when one conception of property rights leads to stratification and systemic poverty and the other doesn't, I'm inclined towards the one that doesn't.  Land ownership can be and is used to enable tyranny and injustice.  I don't see how that can be disputed.

First appropriation is anything but arbitrary. It does not lead to stratification and systemic poverty. And if you're looking for a justification for tyranny, nothing says "tyrannical use of force" like "pay us all for the privilege of living here."

I've already explained the differences between bitcoin and other land.  Currencies like bitcoin are not a zero-sum game.  No one is prevented from using bitcoin as a medium of exchange, or starting their own crypto-currency, and the wealth it can buy is always growing.

Land isn't a zero-sum game, either. It's simply a scarce resource, just like bitcoins. Once all 21 million are mined, The only way to get more will be to provide a good or service to the community. In fact, that's the only way to get some now. The block reward is payment for providing the service of securing and enabling transactions.

claiming land as your own does impose a cost on other people who now have been denied the opportunity to claim that same land as their own.

Missed opportunity is not a cost.

I dont think this is a fair criticism. after all in economics speak we do call these this phenomena "opportunity cost" so im pretty sure it is a cost.

You're misusing the term "opportunity cost." Opportunity cost is what you "pay" when you use your scarce resources to select the best option from among several (two or more) mutually exclusive options. To the extent that missing out on the chance to grab available land is an "opportunity cost," it is one imposed by the person who chose to use the time they could have been homesteading a patch of land to do something they wanted to do more. The homesteader doesn't impose the "opportunity cost" of not having that land available, it is self-imposed by the lazy ass who sat at home watching TV instead of claiming the land he's now complaining he can't grab.

[Anon136]

A "Georgist" doesn't provide anything, just like an "anarchist" doesn't.  If you mean the surrounding community, chances are they're the real reason the land has value in the first place.  Remote land is worth very little, land located in developed communities is worth considerably more.  Granted, there's no reason to assume that every member of the community contributed equally.

And undeveloped land in the middle of a community contributes nothing to that community, while developed land in the middle of nowhere will often collect a community.

I consider homesteading a completely arbitrary way of determining land ownership.  I recognize that in some ways considering land communal property is just as arbitrary, but when one conception of property rights leads to stratification and systemic poverty and the other doesn't, I'm inclined towards the one that doesn't.  Land ownership can be and is used to enable tyranny and injustice.  I don't see how that can be disputed.

First appropriation is anything but arbitrary. It does not lead to stratification and systemic poverty. And if you're looking for a justification for tyranny, nothing says "tyrannical use of force" like "pay us all for the privilege of living here."

I've already explained the differences between bitcoin and other land.  Currencies like bitcoin are not a zero-sum game.  No one is prevented from using bitcoin as a medium of exchange, or starting their own crypto-currency, and the wealth it can buy is always growing.

Land isn't a zero-sum game, either. It's simply a scarce resource, just like bitcoins. Once all 21 million are mined, The only way to get more will be to provide a good or service to the community. In fact, that's the only way to get some now. The block reward is payment for providing the service of securing and enabling transactions.

claiming land as your own does impose a cost on other people who now have been denied the opportunity to claim that same land as their own.

Missed opportunity is not a cost.

I dont think this is a fair criticism. after all in economics speak we do call these this phenomena "opportunity cost" so im pretty sure it is a cost.

You're misusing the term "opportunity cost." Opportunity cost is what you "pay" when you use your scarce resources to select the best option from among several (two or more) mutually exclusive options. To the extent that missing out on the chance to grab available land is an "opportunity cost," it is one imposed by the person who chose to use the time they could have been homesteading a patch of land to do something they wanted to do more. The homesteader doesn't impose the "opportunity cost" of not having that land available, it is self-imposed by the lazy ass who sat at home watching TV instead of claiming the land he's now complaining he can't grab.

ok ok even if i grant you all of that. eliminating the opportunity for other people to claim a given piece of land DOES impose a cost on them. We dont need to get into heated debate over it just think about it. Its very very very obvious. I would prefer to have the ability to build new structures next to my house, if someone removes that option for me than that makes me worse off. Like i said though simply because something implies a cost doesn't necessarily mean its a bad thing. We shouldn't not breath because it imposes a cost on other people and we shouldn't seek damages for other peoples breathing just because it imposes a cost on us either.

[myrkul]

eliminating the opportunity for other people to claim a given piece of land DOES impose a cost on them. We dont need to get into heated debate over it just think about it. Its very very very obvious. I would prefer to have the ability to build new structures next to my house, if someone removes that option for me than that makes me worse off.

If someone can remove that option, then you weren't using it. You're no worse off than you were the day before. A cost is something that diminishes you. You are not diminished, you just can not grow in a particular direction. To the minimal extent that it is a cost, as I said, it is self-imposed. If you wanted to grow in that particular direction, you should have done it. You missed that opportunity, he did not take it from you.

[Anon136]

eliminating the opportunity for other people to claim a given piece of land DOES impose a cost on them. We dont need to get into heated debate over it just think about it. Its very very very obvious. I would prefer to have the ability to build new structures next to my house, if someone removes that option for me than that makes me worse off.

If someone can remove that option, then you weren't using it. You're no worse off than you were the day before. A cost is something that diminishes you. You are not diminished, you just can not grow in a particular direction. To the minimal extent that it is a cost, as I said, it is self-imposed. If you wanted to grow in that particular direction, you should have done it. You missed that opportunity, he did not take it from you.

maybe im building a structure somewhere else at the moment but fully intended to build a structure on the disputed land as soon as i was finished with my present task.

[myrkul]

eliminating the opportunity for other people to claim a given piece of land DOES impose a cost on them. We dont need to get into heated debate over it just think about it. Its very very very obvious. I would prefer to have the ability to build new structures next to my house, if someone removes that option for me than that makes me worse off.

If someone can remove that option, then you weren't using it. You're no worse off than you were the day before. A cost is something that diminishes you. You are not diminished, you just can not grow in a particular direction. To the minimal extent that it is a cost, as I said, it is self-imposed. If you wanted to grow in that particular direction, you should have done it. You missed that opportunity, he did not take it from you.

maybe im building a structure somewhere else at the moment but fully intended to build a structure on the disputed land as soon as i was finished with my present task.

Then you shouldn't leave that land up for grabs.

[Anon136]

eliminating the opportunity for other people to claim a given piece of land DOES impose a cost on them. We dont need to get into heated debate over it just think about it. Its very very very obvious. I would prefer to have the ability to build new structures next to my house, if someone removes that option for me than that makes me worse off.

If someone can remove that option, then you weren't using it. You're no worse off than you were the day before. A cost is something that diminishes you. You are not diminished, you just can not grow in a particular direction. To the minimal extent that it is a cost, as I said, it is self-imposed. If you wanted to grow in that particular direction, you should have done it. You missed that opportunity, he did not take it from you.

maybe im building a structure somewhere else at the moment but fully intended to build a structure on the disputed land as soon as i was finished with my present task.

Then you shouldn't leave that land up for grabs.

a man cant homestead everything. if someone else homesteads a piece of property that you would have otherwise homesteaded yourself at some future date, is it not a fact that this action has imposed a cost on you?

saying x is not a cost because it is only denying an opportunity seems a bit silly. What else is a cost other than a denied opportunity. If i break your arm i am denying you the opportunity to play tennis. If there is a clear line where one thing is a real cost and another is simply a denied opportunity can you as specifically as possible explain how to draw this distinction?

i mean if i was a farmer and i was planning on planting a crop in the next logical location that was as easy to access from my house as possible and i show up only to find that some other farmer has planted the crop that i intended to plant there i would be atleast very annoyed. Now i have to go and plant my crop somewhere less convenient. This is a real cost and it has been created simply by someone homesteading unowned land.

so i hope that at-least in principal i have demonstrated that homesteading unowned land can impose a cost on other people.

[myrkul]

a man cant homestead everything. if someone else homesteads a piece of property that you would have otherwise homesteaded yourself at some future date, is it not a fact that this action has imposed a cost on you?

Nope, no more than the early adopters have imposed a cost on you by snagging the low-difficulty coins. You imposed that cost on yourself by not homesteading everything you wanted to use, or not getting into Bitcoin sooner.

saying x is not a cost because it is only denying an opportunity seems a bit silly. What else is a cost other than a denied opportunity. If i break your arm i am denying you the opportunity to play tennis. If there is a clear line where one thing is a real cost and another is simply a denied opportunity can you as specifically as possible explain how to draw this distinction?

It's simple. If you are demonstrably diminished - if your wealth has been reduced, and not merely potential wealth, but actual current wealth - then that is a cost imposed upon you. If your potential wealth has been reduced, then that is a missed opportunity. If we are to start punishing people for taking opportunities that others have missed, then should we allow Starbucks to sue Folgers for "stealing" potential sales of their coffee?

i mean if i was a farmer and i was planning on planting a crop in the next logical location that was as easy to access from my house as possible and i show up only to find that some other farmer has planted the crop that i intended to plant there i would be atleast very annoyed. Now i have to go and plant my crop somewhere less convenient. This is a real cost and it has been created simply by someone homesteading unowned land.

No, it is an opportunity cost, self-imposed by putting off homesteading that land. You valued whatever you were doing instead of homesteading that land more than the value you would have gained by homesteading that land. You took a risk in that leaving that land unowned, someone else could come along and take it. That risk turned out to be the case. Intention is not the deed. It does not establish a claim.

[Anon136]

It's simple. If you are demonstrably diminished - if your wealth has been reduced, and not merely potential wealth, but actual current wealth - then that is a cost imposed upon you.

ok then this gets down to the heart of the matter. This is going to be a rather abstract analogy so please bear with me. Lets say i hated you and so i stalked your every move. you were unemployed and looking for a job. so with each interview you went to i would create some elaborate scheme to ensure that you did not get hired. You fail to get a job and die of starvation. Now i never caused any of your existing wealth to be diminished. That was diminished entirely by your needed to eat and drink and pay for shelter and stuff.

So according to you i have imposed no cost on you and according to my definition of the word crime it is when someone imposes a cost on you without your consent. If all of these premises follow than it should be the case that i have not committed any sort of crime against you. Would you say this is accurate, that in the aforementioned example i did not commit a crime or would you say that the premises or conclusions are faulty?

[myrkul]

It's simple. If you are demonstrably diminished - if your wealth has been reduced, and not merely potential wealth, but actual current wealth - then that is a cost imposed upon you.

ok then this gets down to the heart of the matter. This is going to be a rather abstract analogy so please bear with me. Lets say i hated you and so i stalked your every move. you were unemployed and looking for a job. so with each interview you went to i would create some elaborate scheme to ensure that you did not get hired. You fail to get a job and die of starvation. Now i never caused any of your existing wealth to be diminished. That was diminished entirely by your needed to eat and drink and pay for shelter and stuff.

So according to you i have imposed no cost on you and according to my definition of the word crime it is when someone imposes a cost on you without your consent. If all of these premises follow than it should be the case that i have not committed any sort of crime against you. Would you say this is accurate, that in the aforementioned example i did not commit a crime or would you say that the premises or conclusions are faulty?

Quite right. These costs were imposed upon myself by my stubborn insistence on finding employment rather than working to provide these needs for myself. Now, if you have lied about me to prevent my employment, that's fraud. Not against me, interestingly enough, but against the employers. You lied to them, and thus denied them the product of my labor.

i guess a less abstract example would just be slander. If what you say is true than slander necessarily isn't a crime. Or the definition of crime doesnt depend on the idea of imposing costs.

Do you believe you have a right to your reputation? Slander is similar to the case of lying to the employers to prevent them from hiring me. Or trademark infringement. If I were to sell people a "MacDownalds" burger, I've committed an act of fraud by willfully misrepresenting my product as a McDonalds burger. Not, again, against McDonalds, but against the customers who thought they were getting a McDonalds burger.

[Anon136]

Ok lets try again. You happen across a man locked in a prison cell. He was locked there by accident and has done nothing wrong. Additionally his ending up there is not a product of poor choices but rather pure bad luck. He has been there for a long time. You are the first person to come across him since he became imprisoned. Its very easy for you to set him free, there is a large red button that says push here. He can not reach the button but you can.

Lets say you chose not to help him. Now he will be trapped in that cell for ever because of your choice. do you still say that by choosing not to set him free you have not imposed a cost on him? I mean not pushing the button doesnt take anything away from him that he currently has, it just denies him opportunity.

if we accept that you have not imposed a cost on him by not pushing the button than doesnt it follow that not pushing the button could never be considered a crime? It seems to me that it ought to be a crime.

[myrkul]

Nope, no crime. Dick move, maybe, but not a crime.

No positive obligation may be imposed upon another person against their will.

That's libertarianism 101. You're not - nor can you be, under any libertarian code of law - legally obligated to act on behalf of another.