Re: [LandCafe] Whether landowners are superflous?
- "A renter has "exclusive" tenure during the term of a lease. He may even exclude the Landlord/owner! Do you think renter should be paying LVT?"
Such confusion can be avoided, I think, if we use the right words: "Land owner" and "Land user".
The "renter" rents in order to make use of the land and pays the rent to the "owner".
The "owner", not having created the land, has no economic function and his entitlement to the rent is a legal construct not an economic desert.
If the owner, bought the land from a previous owner who acquired it by conquest or legal stealth (authorised enclosure) and paid for the land, I think that the same question arises as regards slave owners after the abolition of slavery.
If the "owner" wants an economic return sh/e has to be also a land "user" by making improvements---drainage, lasndscaping, destoning, enriching, etc---and getting a return for himself by virtue of the improvements.
This is how I understand the basics of this confused issue.
Let me know if and where I am mistaken.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 10/02/12 10:19 PM
Subject: [LandCafe] Whether landowners are superflous?
RL: The landowner is completely superfluous administratively as well as economically and practically.
JDK: Well, that is a matter of opinion. de Soto's research, for example, suggests otherwise. There are plenty of land nationalizers that might be with you on this theory. I'm not though in favor of land nationalization.
RL: It is those who enjoy exclusive tenure who need to be paying land rent to the community, not a potentially non-existent legal "owner."
JDK: Here is where it might be useful to be lawyer. A renter has "exclusive" tenure during the term of a lease. He may even exclude the Landlord/owner! Do you think renter should be paying LVT?
JDK> > If I understand what you are saying, are you proposing that we need not actually identify the "OWNER"? But just the occupant/"holder" is sufficient where no owner can be certified by the government?
RL > Right. The landowner is completely superfluous administratively as well as economically and practically. It is those who enjoy exclusive tenure who need to be paying land rent to the community, not a potentially non-existent legal "owner."
JDK> > Presumably, wouldn't that make the government the "owner".
RL> No. We've been through this. Government just administers possession and use of land in trust for the people who would otherwise be at liberty to use it. A trustee is not the owner of the trust assets.
JDK: You are making a "theoretical" argument while using "legal" language. It is "a theory" that the government adminsters possession and use of land in trust for the people. But the whole notion of a "trust" is a legal construct.
It's not clear that certain land nationalizing governments actually agree to the idea that they are mere "trustees". Because the beneficiaries can usually petition to get new trustees, who abuse their position as "trustee".
Likewise it is not clear that many people who assert the right to property including land agree with your theory . Their view is that land is actually "owned" ethiern by private entities or the government and that what the government does is handle (via titles and courts) disputes about ownership and tenure, etc.