Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [LandCafe] Re: Legitimate LVT criticism

Expand Messages
  • Harry Pollard
    Roy answered my contention that full collection of rent provides an equal right to the bounties of nature with: But it just self-evidently and indisputably
    Message 1 of 199 , Feb 28, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      Roy answered my contention that full collection of rent provides an equal right to the bounties of nature with:

       

      “But it just self-evidently and indisputably doesn't. All it does is lay an obligation on those who want to exclude others from the bounties of nature (and society). If you can't afford to pay any rent, you are forcibly deprived of access to all the desirable natural resources (i.e., the ones someone else is willing to pay to exclude you from). How on earth does that provide people with a practical right of access to the bounties of nature?”

       

      You can always pay rent because the location provides you with the means to pay it. Whether you can use the advantage the location provides is another matter. Thus, a good place to sell shoes in a crowded part of the High Street will carry a high rent. A good shoe salesman will be able to make plenty of money there.

       

      But if you are less able, not good at selling shoes, you will go broke on this high rent site. This is why the less able cannot get the best sites, not because some “rights” have been abrogated.

       

      In a Georgist economy, the best producers will tend to acquire the best sites, pay the highest rents, make the most money. You seem to think that they are harming others by doing this, which is nonsensical.

       

      Again, ownership of the location – an essential part of a free society – is necessary. One must be able to keep undesirable intruders away. To suggest that this exclusive occupation somehow deprives people of rights is silly.

       

      Harry

       

      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of roy_langston
      Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:05 PM
      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Legitimate LVT criticism

       

       

      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" wrote:

      > Certainly, whether a babe or an oldster, a person has a philosophical equal right to the bounties of nature.

      Yes, that is a matter of principle (not "religion").

      > Henry George's full rent collection elegantly provides the practical method to achieve this.

      But it just self-evidently and indisputably doesn't. All it does is lay an obligation on those who want to exclude others from the bounties of nature (and society). If you can't afford to pay any rent, you are forcibly deprived of access to all the desirable natural resources (i.e., the ones someone else is willing to pay to exclude you from). How on earth does that provide people with a practical right of access to the bounties of nature? I realize you imagine that with full rent collection even quite good land will somehow magically become rent-free, but such a notion has no basis in history, logic or economics, sorry.

      > Doesn't need exemptions - in fact they act against the
      > intention of collection.

      Collection of rent is not the intention. It is merely a means to the ends of liberty, justice and prosperity. Those ends cannot be achieved without a UIE.

      -- Roy Langston

    • walto
      ... Right. Both almost surely true. ... And the truths find there way in there too! W
      Message 199 of 199 , Mar 5 4:00 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > So you are saying that the existence of the Flat Earth Society DOES make the spheroidal shape of the earth disputable?
        > >
        > > My degree of confidence is roughly the same as that in my above judgment regarding your personality. Put it this way: is it possible I'm wrong about either the shape of the earth or your arrogance? Sure, I could be wrong about pretty much every proposition that seems obvious to me--that is the nature of human fallibility. But it's really, really doubtful in both cases.
        >
        > So you claim the earth's spheroidal shape is not only disputable, but about as disputable as your opinion of my personality?
        >

        Right. Both almost surely true.



        > "A sick man dreams nothing so dreadful that some philosopher isn't saying it." -- Marcus Terentius Varro
        >
        > -- Roy Langston
        >


        And the truths find there way in there too!

        W
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.