Re: Marx, Engel and Morris on George
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:That was not my intention, as I agree that recovery of publicly created land rent for public purposes and benefit is even more crucial than restoring the individual right to liberty through a UIE (or, second best, a CD).
> > The point is that landowning, whether private or public, removes people's liberty to use the land. Absent a UIE, that will reduce them to offering their labor on any terms just to survive, whether rent is recovered for public purposes and benefit or pocketed by private landowners.
> I think you here downplay the crucial importance of recovering rent for public purposes that is now pocketed by private landowners.
The context of my statement was a rejoinder to Scott's statement that, "the same result applies whether the Land is owned by individual Landlords, or the Lord of the State, so long as the Rent is not returned to those whose efforts created the value in the first place." Not everyone helps create land's rental value, and not everyone whose efforts create its rental value add equally to it. Even if we could identify each person whose efforts create land value and how much of the value each of them creates, returning that value to THEM does not answer the issue, because EVERYONE's rights to use land are being abrogated, and that abrogation requires just compensation. IOW, we should be careful not to advocate a return of rent only to "those whose efforts created the value in the first place," and not to everyone else, as, Harry to the contrary, that does not solve the problem of the latter's poverty and lack of access to economic and social opportunity.
> Remember, in the absence of a UIE, those public purpose might include a Citizen's Dividend which, as you have often conceded, could do nearly what a universal personal exemption would do ("next best").Right. My point would still be that even those who do nothing to create rent are still part of the public that is being excluded from the good land, and would and should get their UIEs/CDs as compensation for the abrogation of their rights to liberty.
> I too endorse a UE based on your arguments, but I think one must be careful not to derogate the LVT in any case.I agree, and apologize if what I said was in any way interpretable as derogating LVT. I did not think it was.
> Tremendous harm is done by the private monopolization of natural resources. For one thing, it has required harmful taxes on productivity to make up the lost revenue.Absolutely. Rent recovery is the priority. My point has only been that rent recovery alone does not entirely balance the equation, and nor would distributing the rent only to those whose efforts create it. Compensation must be made not only FROM the beneficiaries of exclusive land tenure but TO its victims.
-- Roy Langston
- It all depends on what you are writing and who will be the reader.Unfortunately, modern schooling isn't great at producing readers so material must be made simple for them. Which point doesn't throw out other writing which may be more complicated as it conveys more subtle directions..Harry********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 6:55 AM, John <burns-john@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> However, I suppose the short sentence is now
> the thing, which may or may not be an improvement.
Harry, tabloid newspapers use short sentences. People are familiar with that. So, you have to write to what they can easily understand. If they have to do double-takes they lose interest. It is that simple. Churchill realised that a long time ago. His books on WW2 and super easy to understand. The proof readers would highlight parts of the book(s) and he would override them. In the end they thanked him for teaching them how to write simple English.