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

Re: Semantic warfare or Horses for courses

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... The point is that _your_ ownership is merely security of tenure. ... So now we can t discuss the difference between genuine and rightful ownership of
    Message 1 of 229 , Mar 30, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <harrypollard@...> wrote:

      > Then, if Roy's security of tenure is indistinguishable from ownership,

      The point is that _your_ "ownership" is merely security of tenure.

      > he shouldn't bring it up.

      So now we can't discuss the difference between genuine and rightful ownership of products of labor and the nominal "ownership" privilege that can only be justified for land given payment of just compensation to the community of those deprived of it? Please.

      > It merely provides ammunition for the opponents - and
      > for those opposing nationalization.

      IMO and IME, there is no way to counter claims of rightful private appropriation of rent without refuting the claims of rightful private ownership of the land. Once you concede that ownership of land is as rightful as ownership of the fruits of one's labor, LVT becomes no more justifiable than income tax.

      > What is the difference between "security of tenure" and so-called
      > "monopolization"?

      Security of tenure is something the community provides to the landholder. Monopolization can be achieved by force.

      > If there is no difference, I suggest you don't bring it up.

      I suggest you adopt a less prescriptive attitude towards what others can appropriately discuss.

      -- Roy Langston
    • roy_langston
      ... Very simply: a geoist economy will likely distribute exclusive tenure more widely (i.e., a larger fraction of the population will end up as direct
      Message 229 of 229 , Apr 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <harrypollard@...> wrote:

        > HP > Let's not pursue this. Ownership in a full rent collection economy is fine and harms no-one.
        >
        > RL: Not so. Once it is conceded that land is owned as the fruits of one's
        > labor are owned, how does one justify taxing one and not the other?
        >
        > In a Georgist economy, how on earth does ownership of land harm anyone, whereas "security of tenure", which you favor, doesn't?

        Very simply: a geoist economy will likely distribute exclusive tenure more widely (i.e., a larger fraction of the population will end up as direct landholders). But if people OWN land in a Georgist economy, they have a very good reason to VOTE AGAINST that Georgist economy, thus voting themselves a privilege of pocketing "their" land's rent.

        It is going to be monumentally difficult to implement a geoist economy. In fact, it may be the most difficult task that will ever be accomplished by human beings. It is therefore crucial that the implementation make it even more difficult to undo than it is to do.

        > You apparently see
        > no practical difference between security of tenure and ownership.

        OTC, because it so resembles leasehold tenure, I don't see how one can honestly call secure, exclusive land tenure in a geoist economy "ownership."

        > Neither the "fruits" nor land should be taxed. However, in a Georgist
        > economy, if your location benefits from the surrounding community, you will
        > pay that advantage back to them. This isn't a tax. It's a fee - you pay for what you get.

        It's true that unlike income tax or other taxes, land rent recovery is a voluntary, market-based, value-for-value transaction. It is the only possible way government can be made self-financing. But all that claiming "it's not a tax" will get is a popular perception of disingenuousness.

        -- Roy Langston
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.