Re: [LandCafe] Re: privilege or right?
- On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:40 PM, Matt Bieker wrote:we're saying the same thing.You have a right to take your turn there.When we use sites short-term, we just take turns -- on beaches, roads, etc. Until it gets crowded. Then you might have to charge admittance, e.g. congestion charges.When we use sites long-term, then we owe each other compensation for exclusion -- if we choose a site others have need of /demand for. How can you tell? That's what it's market value is, a way to tell.Taxes are generally unpopular but almost everybody emits carbon.It made the increase in value. But even pre-tech humanoids valued some spots more than others.That's key. Hence society can recover it fairly.Not equally. And not equally all the time. But one rule of ethics is that a moral act must be possible. If you rescue somebody dying in the road, you did good. If you don't rescue somebody dying on the moon while you're here, you did not do bad. You can't measure each individual's contribution to rent. So you don't have to. The market doesn't. It pretty much reflects population density. No individual can claim responsibility for that.And some go back and forth, decreasing for a while, increasing for a while.And to compensation for keeping off others' claims. How much? Whatever the market says. If the market reads labor or density or whatever, so? Land owners/owers are getting off easy.If you want to live as a hunter/gatherer where downtown London now is, how much compensation are you owed for the losses of both your lifestyle and your habitat? Aboriginals could paraphrase you and say tho' you have no right alter Earth irremediably, you still have exclusive right to any value you individually produce.
People buy a gold mine for the ore?
Henry George School of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91043
Tel: 818 352-4141
Harry Pollard wrote:
>So, now you agree that someone using “intrinsic”Uh, they used it in an entirely different
>may not be an ignoramus as these distinguished
>economists both used it.
context. It's using a word in an inappropriate
context that makes one seem an ignoramus. For
example, if someone said, "This pond has an
intrinsic frog population of 36," that would make
them seem a biological ignoramus.
>The writers used it to describe the actual valueYou reversed the quotation marks inappropriately,
>of the "bullion" within the coin, I used it to
>describe the actual value of the bullion within
because there actually is bullion in a gold coin,
but not in a gold mine. There is only ore in the
mine, not bullion. So your sentence should have read,
"The writers used it to describe the actual value
of the bullion within the coin, I used it to
describe the actual value of the 'bullion' within
the mine," thus making it clear that you were
not using the word the way they were using it.
>Fewer ad hominems and more attention toCast out first the beam that is in thine own
>discovery would be appreciated.
Harry also wrote:
>“There is a lot of confused nonsense about jobsGeorge claimed rent recovery was "the solution"
>and job creation. While it is true that poverty
>and destitution are rarely the result of
>overpopulation and usually the result of unjust
>land tenure arrangements, claiming miracles for
>rent recovery will not increase our credibility.
>So you agree? Didn’t claim any miracles.
to poverty. But it can't solve poverty caused by
the other factors I identified: Easter Island-style
overshoot; adherence to traditional ways that can
no longer support the population; endemic disease
or animal pests; climate change; depredations by
thieves or corrupt governments; etc.
>You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.In logic, it is important to ensure that every
premise is true, as any false premise, no matter
how minor or how very slightly false it may seem,
can lead to radically false conclusions.
>What did Henry George get wrong?The nature of money and interest; the moral basis
and economic effects of patents and copyrights;
the appropriate remedy for poverty caused by
systematic uncompensated violation of people's
land-use rights; etc.
Harry also wrote:
>I suppose being a gold-bug is rather betterFiat money is not backed by nothing in particular.
>than being a fiat-fanatic.
>I think a money backed by a commodity is
>infinitely better than a money backed by (as Ed
>Dodson put it) 'nothing is particular'.
It is backed by government's power to tax and to
order money payments in settlement of debts.
>The present fiat-fraud is a permanent invisibleThe current system is debt money, not fiat money,
>tax on our production.
and the permanent invisible "tax" goes to private
banks, their officers and owners, not to
government, and thus is not a tax at all but a
rent -- i.e., a return to privilege.
-- Roy Langston
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!