The monopolization of the air and Georgism
ruet...@outgun.com
injustice of land monopoly is the air monopoly analogy. If a person
were to invent a machine that captured all of the air in the atmosphere
and confined it to a suitable container, would the air be their
rightful property and would they be justified in charging all of the
other inhabitants of the earth a fee for the privilege of breathing?
Virtually everyone with the exception of the most fervent
anarchocapitalists (who are likely suffering from some sort of organic
oxygen deficiency in the first place) would answer "no".
Why then are these same seemingly rational people unable to extend that
viewpoint to land?
Some common answers and their obvious refutations:
"Air is necessary for life."
-- So is land unless you've figured out a way to levitate and acquire
all of your needed nutrients by absorbing them from the air.
"The air in my house is mine. If you take it, you are stealing."
-- Does the deed to your house specifically state this? Is your house
airtight? Do you not breathe when you leave your house? Methinks that
you have stolen some of my air.
"The air belongs to no one. If someone were to bottle it all up,
they'd be initiating force against others."
-- The person who posted this gem on another forum where I post
followed it up with "If one person owns all the land in a country, then
it's their country and if you don't like it you should leave." Amazing
how a mind can fervently hold two such diametrically opposed positions
and not short circuit.
So I ask all on here who do not accept the obvious truth of the
Georgist position on land - "How is this hypothetical monopolization of
the air any different than the monopolization of the land?"
sinister
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
news:js99u0hl0dr07trnm...@4ax.com...
> On 11 Jan 2005 14:50:11 -0800, "ruet...@outgun.com"
> <ruet...@outgun.com> wrote:
>>
>>In my opinion, one of the most compelling means of highlighting the
>>injustice of land monopoly is the air monopoly analogy.
>>
>
No one person owns all the land. But certain privileged parties do.
Take the US, for example. Because of slavery and related racist
institutions, blacks were unable to own land. This discrepancy explains
some of the disparity in wealth between black and white households (which is
far greater than the disparity in income).
>
>>
>>If a personwere to invent a machine that captured all of the air in
>>the atmosphere...
>>
>
> One would call it Holocaust or Genocide or something like that.
>
> Any other silly examples?
It's not a silly example. It's a form of *reasoning*, showing that the
"right" to own land and capture Ricardian land rent is morally wrong.
"Reasoning"...you might try it sometime.
>
>
>
>
> --
> "A society that robs an individual of the product of his
> effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
> gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
Huh. How much effort does it take to collect Ricardian land rents from the
productive?
robert j. kolker
sinister wrote:
> some of the disparity in wealth between black and white households (which is
> far greater than the disparity in income).
Define wealth quantiatively. Produce an algorithm for computing the
wealth of an individual, a family or a firm. Show that your definition
is empirically valid.
Bob Kolker
fm
The product of a consultant's effort might be USD 200, of which he gets
about half. The rest is robbed by the owners of the firm, with
society's blessing. This is what concerned Ms. Rand.
sinister
"robert j. kolker" <now...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:34keivF...@individual.net...
Wealth is easy to define. Of course, it's somewhat hard to measure
accurately en masse, like many quantities in the social sciences.
"Show your definition is empirically valid."
And this means...?
>
> Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
fm wrote:
>
> The product of a consultant's effort might be USD 200, of which he gets
> about half. The rest is robbed by the owners of the firm, with
> society's blessing. This is what concerned Ms. Rand.
Consultants generally get what the contracted for. The people who pay
them are not stealing from them. The government is however, by virtue of
income tax. Income tax is either extortion or theft. The government has
made itself a "partner" to every act of earning.
Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
sinister wrote:
> Wealth is easy to define. Of course, it's somewhat hard to measure
> accurately en masse, like many quantities in the social sciences.
I am waiting for your definition with bated breath. If it is so easy
then produce a definition.
>
> "Show your definition is empirically valid."
>
> And this means...?
It means that the definition of wealth involves only observables. No
ideal or hypothetical entities are allowed in the definition. I am being
perversely logical-positivist here, because that is the only way to deal
with economists who are slippery customers. We can cut physicists some
slack because they check their results by experiment. Physics is
empirically falsifiable (see Popper). Is this true of economics theories?
By strict Popperian standards, it is doubtful that economics is a science.
Bob Kolker
fm
Oh, but you misunderstood my post. Ms. Rand was thinking of the owners
of the consultancy-firm as robbers of the product of the effort of the
consultants.
ruet...@outgun.com
>>injustice of land monopoly is the air monopoly analogy.
>What land monopoly? Who the heck owns all the land?
You need to go back to Econ 101 and look up the definition of monopoly.
>>If a personwere to invent a machine that captured all of the air in
>>the atmosphere...
>One would call it Holocaust or Genocide or something like that.
You failed to answer the question. How is the air different from the
land with regard to property rights?
>Any other silly examples?
What was so silly about it?
ruet...@outgun.com
>wealth of an individual, a family or a firm. Show that your definition
>is empirically valid.
Net Assets - Net Liabilities
robert j. kolker
Do all assets have a monetary value? If so how is it determined. I am
interested in observable, not names of hypothetical quantities.
Bob Kolker
ruet...@outgun.com
>interested in observable, not names of hypothetical quantities.
Sure. For all assets for which there is an active market, you have
market value. For assets where the market is perhaps not so active,
you have discounted cash flow models and other valuation methods. In
the case of intellectual property, the value derives from an
artificial, government-granted monopoly, so the focus should be on
eliminating the special privilege rather than concocting a method for
valuing it.
robert j. kolker
ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
>
> Sure. For all assets for which there is an active market, you have
> market value. For assets where the market is perhaps not so active,
> you have discounted cash flow models and other valuation methods.
These are hypothetical estimates of value. The way to find out how much
an asset is worth is to -sell it-. Then you know how much it is worth.
But it is not your asset any more.
In
> the case of intellectual property, the value derives from an
> artificial, government-granted monopoly, so the focus should be on
> eliminating the special privilege rather than concocting a method for
> valuing it.
The value of intellectual property is how many $$$ you get if you sell
the rights to it. Again, the determination of value requires a sale.
Anything else is hypothetical maybe-if-shouda-wouda-couda nonsense.
Bob Kolker
ruet...@outgun.com
monopoly.
>Ok, I'll do that. Now, will you be kind enough to tell me who owns all
>the land? Thanks!
No one has to own ALL of the land for it to be a monopoly.
>>You failed to answer the question. How is the air different from the
>>land with regard to property rights?
>You don't die if you don't own a piece of land. Got it?
You most certainly WOULD die if you had no access to land. Just as you
would die if you had no access to air. Whether or not someone is
allowed to "own" the land or the air and deny you that access to it is
an artificial legal construct. Got it?
>>What was so silly about it?
>The fact the owning land is not a prerequisite for survival while
>breathing air is. Got it?
You're confusing "ownership" with "access" again.
You need access to air to survive. You need access to land to survive.
There is no difference in that regard.
Now that we have put that logical error of yours to rest, answer the
question.
ruet...@outgun.com
>> market value. For assets where the market is perhaps not so active,
>> you have discounted cash flow models and other valuation methods.
>These are hypothetical estimates of value. The way to find out how
much
>an asset is worth is to -sell it-. Then you know how much it is worth.
>But it is not your asset any more.
Market value is a hypothetical estimate? If shares of IBM stock are
currently trading at $95/share and I own 1 share, I can't be reasonably
certain that I have $95 of wealth in the form of IBM stock without
actually selling it? Using that pretzel logic, society as we know it
would cease to exist since decision making would be impossible until
after a decision was made.
robert j. kolker
ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
> Market value is a hypothetical estimate? If shares of IBM stock are
> currently trading at $95/share and I own 1 share, I can't be reasonably
> certain that I have $95 of wealth in the form of IBM stock without
> actually selling it? Using that pretzel logic, society as we know it
> would cease to exist since decision making would be impossible until
> after a decision was made.
>
Between the time you see the price and the time you sell it, the price
may change. You only know what is in your wallet. Whats in yerrr wallet?
Bob Kolker
ro...@telus.net
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On 11 Jan 2005 14:50:11 -0800, "ruet...@outgun.com"
><ruet...@outgun.com> wrote:
>>
>>In my opinion, one of the most compelling means of highlighting the
>>injustice of land monopoly is the air monopoly analogy.
>
>What land monopoly? Who the heck owns all the land?
Land is a canonical example of monopoly in classical economics, but
IMO "monopoly" is something of a red herring. The issue is how (or
perhaps more accurately, if) one can exercise one's right to use a
natural resource, and somehow thereby eliminate other people's rights
to do the same.
>>If a personwere to invent a machine that captured all of the air in
>>the atmosphere...
>
>One would call it Holocaust or Genocide or something like that.
>
>Any other silly examples?
What would you call it if a person obtained possession of enough of a
necessary natural resource like air or land so that others didn't have
access to all they wanted, except by paying him for it?
Aside from "private property in land," that is...
-- Roy L
Morris Ebbets
>
>
> sinister wrote:
> > Wealth is easy to define. Of course, it's somewhat hard to measure
> > accurately en masse, like many quantities in the social sciences.
>
> I am waiting for your definition with bated breath. If it is so easy
> then produce a definition.
> >
> > "Show your definition is empirically valid."
> >
> > And this means...?
>
> It means that the definition of wealth involves only observables. No
Liquidate all the physical assets at market value. Sum.
See, that was easy, wasn't it?
ro...@telus.net
<now...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>sinister wrote:
>
>> some of the disparity in wealth between black and white households (which is
>> far greater than the disparity in income).
>
>Define wealth quantiatively.
That is a nonsensical request, as definitions are by definition
qualitative. In this context wealth is defined as assets (owned items
that can be liquidated). Sometimes the term "wealth" is used
imprecisely to denote "net wealth" (assets - liabilities). In either
case, it is not a difficult thing to measure.
>Produce an algorithm for computing the
>wealth of an individual, a family or a firm.
Sum the values of all the subject's assets. If a measurement of net
wealth is desired, subtract the liabilities.
>Show that your definition
>is empirically valid.
"Empirically" valid? It's valid by definition. Duh.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<now...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
>>>Define wealth quantiatively. Produce an algorithm for computing the
>>>wealth of an individual, a family or a firm. Show that your definition
>>>is empirically valid.
>>
>> Net Assets - Net Liabilities
>
>Do all assets have a monetary value?
Yes, by definition.
>If so how is it determined.
Same way as all monetary values: by the market.
>I am
>interested in observable, not names of hypothetical quantities.
No, liar, you are interested in observables at all. You are
interested in evading and obscuring self-evident facts by demanding an
arbitrary -- and indefinitely escalating -- standard of "proof."
-- Roy L
ruet...@outgun.com
>arguments when the premises keep changing, isn't it? But, why would I
>not have access to land?
The premises have not changed. Air is necessary for life. Land is
necessary for life.
>No, *YOU* are. You are the one speaking of owning land and air. Stop
>redefining the premises, ok?
Let me explain this to you slowly, since you clearly have no concept of
logic or the process of framing an argument.
I'm going to list out all of the premises and the conclusion (since you
obviously don't know the difference between the two) and then we can
argue over which of the premises are valid (which is another matter).
Premises:
Air is necessary for life. AND
Land is necessary for life. AND
In order to acquire land or air, one must have access to it. AND
Ownership of something permits someone to restrict others' access to
it. AND
Access to things which are necessary for life should not be restricted.
Conclusion:
Ownership of land should not be permitted. AND
Ownership of air should not be permitted.
If all of the premises hold, that is the only logical conclusion that
can be reached.
You seem to believe that all of the premises hold, but you reach the
conclusion that ownership of land should be permitted while ownership
of air restricted. That is illogical.
>Whoever tries to deny me access to air or land to survive will die.
>What's the problem?
So now you agree that the ownership of land is illegitimate?
>My error? Liar!
Yes, your error. Do you require a lesson in elementary logic?
ro...@telus.net
<now...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
>
>> Sure. For all assets for which there is an active market, you have
>> market value. For assets where the market is perhaps not so active,
>> you have discounted cash flow models and other valuation methods.
>
>These are hypothetical estimates of value.
No, actually, there's nothing hypothetical about them, any more than
weighing someone by putting them on a scale yields a "hypothetical"
estimate. It's a measure. It might be a good (i.e., independently
replicable) one, it might not, but there is nothing "hypothetical"
about it.
>The way to find out how much
>an asset is worth is to -sell it-.
No, that's only one way to _measure_ its value, and often not a very
good one. For example, suppose you put something up for sale by the
side of the road, and just accept the first offer. That is one
measure of its "value." But if you advertised it, and held out for
the best price offered after one week, you'd obtain a different and
almost certainly higher "value." For the exact same item. So which
one was "hypothetical"?
>Then you know how much it is worth.
No, you don't. You only have another datum. The person who bought it
might well turn around and sell it to someone else for more.
>But it is not your asset any more.
An asset's value does not depend on who owns it.
> In
>> the case of intellectual property, the value derives from an
>> artificial, government-granted monopoly, so the focus should be on
>> eliminating the special privilege rather than concocting a method for
>> valuing it.
>
>The value of intellectual property is how many $$$ you get if you sell
>the rights to it.
No, it isn't. That's just another estimate. It is not at all unheard
of for valuable intellectual properties to sell for $1, pro forma.
Sales between friends and family members are often concluded at prices
both sides know to be different from market. Etc.
Your claims are just garbage, as always.
>Again, the determination of value requires a sale.
Utter garbage. A sale just provides another datum.
>Anything else is hypothetical maybe-if-shouda-wouda-couda nonsense.
No, your claim is just nonsense, like claiming _any_ measurement is
"hypothetical."
-- Roy L
ruet...@outgun.com
>may change. You only know what is in your wallet. Whats in yerrr
wallet?
Between the time I look in my wallet and the time I close it, money can
fall out. Yet life goes on.
ro...@telus.net
<now...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
>
>> Market value is a hypothetical estimate? If shares of IBM stock are
>> currently trading at $95/share and I own 1 share, I can't be reasonably
>> certain that I have $95 of wealth in the form of IBM stock without
>> actually selling it? Using that pretzel logic, society as we know it
>> would cease to exist since decision making would be impossible until
>> after a decision was made.
>
>Between the time you see the price and the time you sell it, the price
>may change.
So what? Between the time you step on a scale and the time you look
at the number on the dial, you may exhale a milligram of water vapor.
>You only know what is in your wallet. Whats in yerrr wallet?
It is now very obvious to me that for some reason you are desperately
trying to prevent yourself from knowing certain facts. I would
suggest that you ask yourself what is so threatening in those facts
that you are willing to sacrifice your contact with reality in order
to avoid knowing them.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
>I think Ayn Rand had a compassion for business consultants.
>
>The product of a consultant's effort might be USD 200, of which he gets
>about half. The rest is robbed by the owners of the firm, with
>society's blessing. This is what concerned Ms. Rand.
?? Bizarre.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On 12 Jan 2005 11:18:51 -0800, "ruet...@outgun.com"
><ruet...@outgun.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>You need to go back to Econ 101 and look up the definition of
>>monopoly.
>>
>>>Ok, I'll do that. Now, will you be kind enough to tell me who owns all
>>>the land? Thanks!
>>
>>No one has to own ALL of the land for it to be a monopoly.
>
>Ok, here's advice from you and now for you:
>
>"You need to go back to Econ 101 and look up the definition of
>monopoly."
Sorry, Mental Disease, but you need to take Rue's advice, and your
own: land is a canonical example of monopoly.
>>>>You failed to answer the question. How is the air different from the
>>>>land with regard to property rights?
>>
>>>You don't die if you don't own a piece of land. Got it?
>>
>>You most certainly WOULD die if you had no access to land.
>
>Oh, so now instead of owning it access to land.
It has always been access, _given_ that someone owns, as private
property, the natural resource you need access to. You seem
desperately unwilling to address the implications of Rue's
hypothetical example.
>It's very easy to win
>arguments when the premises keep changing, isn't it?
You are the one trying to evade the question by pretending Rue has
tried to change the premises. He has not.
>But, why would I
>not have access to land?
Because someone else owns it, just like the air in Rue's example.
>>>The fact the owning land is not a prerequisite for survival while
>>>breathing air is. Got it?
>>
>>You're confusing "ownership" with "access" again.
>
>No, *YOU* are.
No. Rue is correct. The question he posed concerns the use of
"property rights" to deny others access to what nature provided for
all.
>You are the one speaking of owning land and air. Stop
>redefining the premises, ok?
He has not redefined the premises. He has simply applied the current
logic of private land ownership to a different natural resource: air.
>>You need access to air to survive. You need access to land to survive.
>>There is no difference in that regard.
>
>Whoever tries to deny me access to air or land to survive will die.
>What's the problem?
The problem is that others whom you wish to deny access to "your" land
may feel the same way you do. How is it that you have a right to kill
for access to land someone else claims as theirs, but they have no
right to kill you for access to the land you claim as yours?
>>Now that we have put that logical error of yours to rest, answer the
>>question.
>
>My error? Liar!
No, Mental Disease. Rue was correct. It was your error -- or perhaps
your quite deliberate attempt to evade the question...?
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On 12 Jan 2005 05:59:40 -0800, "ruet...@outgun.com"
><ruet...@outgun.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>In my opinion, one of the most compelling means of highlighting the
>>>>injustice of land monopoly is the air monopoly analogy.
>>
>>>What land monopoly? Who the heck owns all the land?
>>
>>You need to go back to Econ 101 and look up the definition of monopoly.
>
>Ok, I'll do that. Now, will you be kind enough to tell me who owns all
>the land? Thanks!
The owners.
Just to make the question more interesting, suppose we had a bunch of
people all running their own air-capture machines. Would that make
the suffocation of non-machine-owners who did not pay any of them for
bottled breathing air more palatable to you?
>>>>If a personwere to invent a machine that captured all of the air in
>>>>the atmosphere...
>>
>>>One would call it Holocaust or Genocide or something like that.
>>
>>You failed to answer the question. How is the air different from the
>>land with regard to property rights?
>
>You don't die if you don't own a piece of land. Got it?
You do if you don't pay for access to some (or have such access given
to you by someone else, of course).
_Got_it_?
>>>Any other silly examples?
>>
>>What was so silly about it?
>
>The fact the owning land is not a prerequisite for survival while
>breathing air is. Got it?
_Using_ land is a prerequisite for survival. So is using air. One is
privately owned. Why not the other? And if not the other, then why
the first? That is Rue's question, which you have been trying so
desperately to evade.
_Got_it_?
-- Roy L
ruet...@outgun.com
>No, I don't!
>
>You are once again confusing ownership with access. Stop doing that
>and you'll see the light... eventually!
As Roy and I have both already explained, ownership of property is
(among other things) the right to exclude other people from using that
property.
If all of the land in the world is owned by 10 people, then those 10
people have the right to prevent the other 6 billion people in the
world from accessing land.
You don't appear to have any problem with that.
Yet if 10 people owned all of the air in the world, you would have a
problem with that.
Your position is horribly inconsistent.
robert j. kolker
Morris Ebbets wrote:
> Liquidate all the physical assets at market value. Sum.
Now that is a winner. But that is not the only way (it ought to be) that
wealth is calculated, is it?
Economics will become a science when non-observables such as utility
functions are eliminated. What counts is how many houses, how many
cattle, how many bucks. Whats in yerrrr wallet?
Economics needs to hue strictly to the logical-positivist model in order
to stay honest. Economists cannot be trusted in the dark or on a
government payroll.
Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
> "Empirically" valid? It's valid by definition. Duh.
If I define a tail to be a leg how many legs does a sheep have? Nothing
is valid by definition. What is valid is that which is observed and
carefully measured. That is valid. Definitions are bullshit. It is facts
that count.
Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
ro...@telus.net wrote:
> No, liar, you are interested in observables at all. You are
> interested in evading and obscuring self-evident facts by demanding an
> arbitrary -- and indefinitely escalating -- standard of "proof."
I do not lie. I want economics to be as rigorous as quantum mechanics.
Is that unreasonable? When I see an economic theory -falsified- by a
fact adverse to theoretical forecasts and predictions, then I will
believe economics is a science. I have yet to see it.
If an economic model does not predict correctly is is just plain wrong.
It should be discarded.
Facts talk and bullshit walks.
Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>
> It is now very obvious to me that for some reason you are desperately
> trying to prevent yourself from knowing certain facts. I would
> suggest that you ask yourself what is so threatening in those facts
> that you are willing to sacrifice your contact with reality in order
> to avoid knowing them.
I have gone around the sun 70 times and I have yet to see an economic
model discarded because its predictions were incorrect. When economics
is as rigorous as quantum mechanics, then I will believe it is a science.
Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
> No. Rue is correct. The question he posed concerns the use of
> "property rights" to deny others access to what nature provided for
> all.
To provide means to allocate and set aside, all the acts of volition and
consciousness. Nature is not conscious. What is in nature is not
-intended- for anything. It is there. Let those who have the
determination and strength to take, take. Let the weak suffer. Nature
does not give two shits whether the human race exists or not. That is
because nature cannot intend nor care. It is essentially inanimate.
Humans provide for themselves, their families and partners. Nature
provides -nothing-. Nature just is.
Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
>
> Premises:
> Air is necessary for life. AND
> Land is necessary for life. AND
> In order to acquire land or air, one must have access to it. AND
> Ownership of something permits someone to restrict others' access to
> it. AND
> Access to things which are necessary for life should not be restricted.
And a well aimed shot at the owner changes things. Yes? Power and
justice come out of the barrel of a gun.
Bob Kolker
ruet...@outgun.com
>Is that unreasonable? When I see an economic theory -falsified- by a
>fact adverse to theoretical forecasts and predictions, then I will
>believe economics is a science. I have yet to see it.
Economics will never be "as rigorous as quantum mechanics". People are
not automotons who operate in a completely deterministic manner.
I must admit that I am surprised to see you use quantum mechanics as an
example though. There are many phenomena at the quantum level that do
not display nearly the absolute certainty that you seem to crave.
Quite the contrary.
robert j. kolker
ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
> As Roy and I have both already explained, ownership of property is
> (among other things) the right to exclude other people from using that
> property.
Exclusion is a power, not a right. If the proles arise in their
righteous anger the owner can kiss his "rights" goodbye. Ultimately
these things are determined by force, not rights.
Bob Kolker
ruet...@outgun.com
and
>consciousness. Nature is not conscious. What is in nature is not
>-intended- for anything. It is there. Let those who have the
>determination and strength to take, take. Let the weak suffer. Nature
>does not give two shits whether the human race exists or not. That is
>because nature cannot intend nor care. It is essentially inanimate.
>Humans provide for themselves, their families and partners. Nature
>provides -nothing-. Nature just is.
I take it you are an anarchist?
ruet...@outgun.com
>>justice come out of the barrel of a gun.
>"ruetheday" hasn't been able to figure that one out yet.
Another anarchist?
It appears you and Kolker are advocating some sort of violent
revolution whereby the have nots take from the haves by force. Odd,
considering your screen name.
ruet...@outgun.com
>>(among other things) the right to exclude other people from using
that
>>property.
>But it is also the right to include me! Which means that I don't have
>to ask anyone permission to stand. Given that I need land to survive,
>owning a plot a land is a guarantee that I will.
In other words, you have to pay someone to allow you to survive.
>>If all of the land in the world is owned by 10 people, then those 10
>>people have the right to prevent the other 6 billion people in the
>>world from accessing land.
>Please, explain how 10 people could own all of the land without using
>force.
By purchasing it.
Of course, the exact number is irrelevant. It could be a billion
people owning all the land. In which case you'd still have 5 billion
people who would have to pay others to be allowed to survive.
>>Yet if 10 people owned all of the air in the world, you would have a
>>problem with that.
>Please, explain how 10 people could own all of the air without using
>force.
By running machines that bottle it. Now let me guess, you would
consider that to be using force. Why?
>>Your position is horribly inconsistent.
>We'll see about that.
We've already seen.
robert j. kolker
ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
>>
> I must admit that I am surprised to see you use quantum mechanics as an
> example though. There are many phenomena at the quantum level that do
> not display nearly the absolute certainty that you seem to crave.
> Quite the contrary.
Certainty is illusion in a probabalistic reality. I am talking about
rigor and accuracy.
Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
>
> I take it you are an anarchist?
Not at all. I am a neat freaque who detsts catagory error and does not
suffer fools or foolishness gladly. Reality don't care. Reality can't
care. Reality is not alive. The Kosmos is mostly non-alive material.
Bob Kolker
>
robert j. kolker
ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
>
> It appears you and Kolker are advocating some sort of violent
> revolution whereby the haves take from the have nots by force. Odd,
> considering your screen name.
I advocate nothing. I merely not that humans are fundimentally evil and
depraved and I am quite comforatable with that fact. The universe does
not care and we are shit that walks and talks. My fundimental insight is
there is nothing of cosmic significance at all. Shit happens and it does
not matter that it does.
Bob Kolker
>
robert j. kolker
Socialism is a Mental Disease wrote:
> If I own a plot of land, I have to pay no one to survive. Ownership of
> land gives me a guarantee I will have a plot of land on where to live.
You will have ownership right up to the point that someone who outguns
you takes it away from you. Ownership is an illusion. What you have is a
claim backed by force. It can be nullified by greater force.
Bob Kolker
ruet...@outgun.com
>If I own a plot of land, I have to pay no one to survive. Ownership of
>land gives me a guarantee I will have a plot of land on where to live.
You had to pay the previous owner of the land to buy it.
>>By running machines that bottle it. Now let me guess, you would
>>consider that to be using force. Why?
>Someone would be trying to kill me. You don't think that is using
>force?
So stop evading the question and explain why the air is different than
the land.
robert j. kolker
Socialism is a Mental Disease wrote:
>
> This conclusion of yours applies to any right, not just ownership.
Quite so. Might makes Right. It always has been, it will always be so.
Bob Kolker
qu...@syntac.net
ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
> In my opinion, one of the most compelling means of highlighting the
> injustice of land monopoly is the air monopoly analogy. If a person
> were to invent a machine that captured all of the air in the
atmosphere
> and confined it to a suitable container, would the air be their
> rightful property and would they be justified in charging all of the
> other inhabitants of the earth a fee for the privilege of breathing?
I'd like to add a comment to this, does a lack of strong environmental
standards prevent air pollution pretty much amount to the same thing?
There is not much difference between an air-capturing machine and an
air-poisoning machine.
I know this is tangential, as you are trying to make a point regarding
land monopoly, but what is the geoist approach to air mutualization? Is
some sort of pollution tax proposed, like the severance tax for
extracting raw materials from land?
Regards,
Dmytri.
ruet...@outgun.com
>
>
>"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
>blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Jefferson also said: "The earth is given as a common stock for men to
labor and live on."
ruet...@outgun.com
>Or maybe not. Maybe I am the original owner?
Unlikely. There isn't much unclaimed land around for the taking
anymore.
>>So stop evading the question and explain why the air is different
than
>>the land.
>I will do that as soon as you explain how someone can deprive me of
>land without killing me.
By denying you access to land that they own and refusing to sell it to
you.
ruet...@outgun.com
>>>Or maybe not. Maybe I am the original owner?
>>Unlikely. There isn't much unclaimed land around for the taking
>>anymore.
>60% of all land in the US is under Federal control, meaning not
>privately owned.
Nor is it available for you to simply take. Whether the land is owned
by a private individual or the government is irrelevant, the owner can
still legally deny you access to the land.
>>>>So stop evading the question and explain why the air is different
>>than
>>>>the land.
>>>I will do that as soon as you explain how someone can deprive me of
>>>land without killing me.
>>By denying you access to land that they own and refusing to sell it
to
>>you.
>Please, explain how! Start with the fact that right now I am standing
>on a plot of land. What happoens next?
Assuming you are not the owner of the plot of land, the owner asks you
to leave. If you refuse, he calls the police and has you forcibly
removed.
Now stop with the diversions and answer the question.
ruet...@outgun.com
second best solution. That having been said, many people misunderstand
the logic behind pollution taxation. The point of pollution taxation
is not, as many assume, to simply turn market forces loose and let
people bid for the right to pollute, thereby replacing fines with
taxes. The idea is that pollution represents an externality - the cost
of unclean air is not borne by the entity consuming that resource but
by society in general - and the intent of the pollution tax is to
eliminate that externality by forcing the internalization of the cost.
It's sound in theory, but in practice it's difficult to estimate that
cost. Likewise, it's difficult to direct the proceeds of the tax from
the polluters to those who incur the cost of the pollution.
Vendor Neutral
> Now stop with the diversions and answer the question.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
ro...@telus.net
<now...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> "Empirically" valid? It's valid by definition. Duh.
>
>If I define a tail to be a leg how many legs does a sheep have?
Depends how you define "leg" and "sheep"...
>Nothing is valid by definition.
Wrong. Definitions and their logical consequences are valid by
definition. Mathematics is built on that fact.
>What is valid is that which is observed and
>carefully measured. That is valid.
Is it? What does any observation or measurement (however careful)
mean in the absence of agreed definitions to identify what is being
observed, the units of measurement, etc.?
Newton created the foundations of modern civilization in physics and
mathematics almost single-handed, and he did it by starting with
_definitions_ of the things he was going to discuss.
>Definitions are bullshit. It is facts
>that count.
Without definitions, how will you identify any facts?
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<now...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
>
>> Premises:
>> Air is necessary for life. AND
>> Land is necessary for life. AND
>> In order to acquire land or air, one must have access to it. AND
>> Ownership of something permits someone to restrict others' access to
>> it. AND
>> Access to things which are necessary for life should not be restricted.
>
>And a well aimed shot at the owner changes things. Yes? Power and
>justice come out of the barrel of a gun.
You are clearly misusing the word, "justice."
Anyway, can we assume from the above that you agree private land
ownership is effectively the same as forcibly depriving people of air,
and there is therefore no reason the victims should not use force in
reply?
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<now...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>The universe does
>not care and we are shit that walks and talks.
Speak for yourself.
Oh. Right.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<now...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> It is now very obvious to me that for some reason you are desperately
>> trying to prevent yourself from knowing certain facts. I would
>> suggest that you ask yourself what is so threatening in those facts
>> that you are willing to sacrifice your contact with reality in order
>> to avoid knowing them.
>
>I have gone around the sun 70 times and I have yet to see an economic
>model discarded because its predictions were incorrect.
Yes, well, you _do_ avert your eyes whenever we try to show you...
>When economics
>is as rigorous as quantum mechanics, then I will believe it is a science.
Is meteorology a science? How good are its predictions?
Economics is orders of magnitude more subtle and complex than
meteorology. And meteorology enjoys the additional advantage that the
wealthiest and most powerful people in the world are not trying to
prevent anyone from understanding it.
-- Roy L
Igor
> <ruet...@outgun.com> wrote:
>
>>You failed to answer the question. How is the air different from the
>>land with regard to property rights?
>>
>
>
> You don't die if you don't own a piece of land. Got it?
>
The real point is that air is NOT a scarce good. There is much more
available than people want when price is zero. If price of land were
zero people would want more than exist. Land is a scarce good so it is
treated differently from air which is a free good. The two goods have
absolutely no connection.
As to who owns the land, many many different individuals.
ro...@telus.net
<now...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> No. Rue is correct. The question he posed concerns the use of
>> "property rights" to deny others access to what nature provided for
>> all.
>
>To provide means to allocate and set aside, all the acts of volition and
>consciousness.
Nonsense. You provide a fine example of Usenet futility. Nothing
volitional or conscious about it (on one level, anyway...).
>Nature is not conscious. What is in nature is not
>-intended- for anything. It is there.
OK; it is there equally to all.
>Let those who have the
>determination and strength to take, take. Let the weak suffer.
OK, so you agree that private ownership of land is nothing but
forcible theft, and proof of the weakness of those who have permitted
others to take it. Well, there's an easy way to fix that...
-- Roy L
Igor
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 04:30:31 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
> <root@localhost.> wrote:
>
>
>>On 11 Jan 2005 14:50:11 -0800, "ruet...@outgun.com"
>><ruet...@outgun.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In my opinion, one of the most compelling means of highlighting the
>>>injustice of land monopoly is the air monopoly analogy.
>>
>
>
> Land is a canonical example of monopoly in classical economics,
Really. Where do land owners exert market power in the land market. You
do not mean monopoly. You mean a means for explotation. I do not agree
with the idea but I think that is what you mean. I doubt you have any
better understanding of the term monopoly than you had of the term
perfectly inelastic or whay the fact land does not have perfectly
inelastic supply or perfectly inelastic demand some of the tax will be
passed on to renters.
>but
> IMO "monopoly" is something of a red herring. The issue is how (or
> perhaps more accurately, if) one can exercise one's right to use a
> natural resource, and somehow thereby eliminate other people's rights
> to do the same.
>
Of course it is you do not understand the definition. It has nothing to
do with exclusive right to a single resource. Monopoly is defined as
being the only seller of a good with no close substitutes. Your proposal
would make government the monopolist on land while at this point there
is no monopolist.
>
> What would you call it if a person obtained possession of enough of a
> necessary natural resource like air or land so that others didn't have
> access to all they wanted, except by paying him for it?
>
A scarce good. Except one person would have to do it. The point is with
no ownership of land if land has a 0 price people would want more than
exist. Therefore it is scarce. At a 0 price there is much more air than
people want that is why it is not scarce. You miss the basic foundation
of what economic questions are and the concept of scarcity, which is
what modern economics is built on. My guess is because you have never
read a single textbook dealing with modern economics.
ro...@telus.net
<now...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
>> As Roy and I have both already explained, ownership of property is
>> (among other things) the right to exclude other people from using that
>> property.
>
>Exclusion is a power, not a right.
Garbage. Exclusion of others from privately owned land is a legal
right backed by government power.
>If the proles arise in their
>righteous anger the owner can kiss his "rights" goodbye. Ultimately
>these things are determined by force, not rights.
Then you agree that there is no reason to respect private claims to
ownership of land.
-- Roy L
Igor
>>Oh, so now instead of owning it access to land. It's very easy to win
>>arguments when the premises keep changing, isn't it? But, why would I
>>not have access to land?
>
>
> The premises have not changed. Air is necessary for life. Land is
> necessary for life.
>
Yes but land is scarce and air is not. This is the exact convolusion
that lead modern economics away from classical theories of value to
objective theories of value. The classical economist could not explain
why air or water were free while something like diamonds had a price.
They had to use a two fold value system, use value and market value.
> Access to things which are necessary for life should not be restricted.
>
Complete normative statement which can not be proven. Food is also
necessary for life do you propose it should all be free? Do you propose
no one can own food?
> Conclusion:
> Ownership of land should not be permitted. AND
> Ownership of air should not be permitted.
>
By your logic ownership of any food should not be permitted either.
The problem with food and land is they are scarce without property
rights anyone can steal your product so there is no incentive to make
land productive or to produce food.
> If all of the premises hold, that is the only logical conclusion that
> can be reached.
>
Yes land will not used and people will starve if property rights are not
preserved.
> You seem to believe that all of the premises hold, but you reach the
> conclusion that ownership of land should be permitted while ownership
> of air restricted. That is illogical.
>
No need to reach the conclusion. Air is a free good it is not scarce.
There is no market for air because more air can be obtained costlessly
than is wanted. There is no way to restrict use of the air and there is
no market for air.
ro...@telus.net
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On 12 Jan 2005 14:07:04 -0800, "ruet...@outgun.com"
><ruet...@outgun.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>So now you agree that the ownership of land is illegitimate?
>>
>>>No, I don't!
>>>
>>>You are once again confusing ownership with access. Stop doing that
>>>and you'll see the light... eventually!
>>
>>As Roy and I have both already explained, ownership of property is
>>(among other things) the right to exclude other people from using that
>>property.
>
>But it is also the right to include me!
Ah. I see. So it's only _other_ people who can rightly be excluded
from accessing land, not _you_. Got it.
>Which means that I don't have
>to ask anyone permission to stand.
Because you have the right to access natural resources like air and
land, while _other_ people do _not_ have any such right. Check.
You do understand, don't you, how your position leads the Georgists to
use words like "privilege," "aristocracy," "inequality" and "royal
libertarian"?
>Given that I need land to survive,
>owning a plot a land is a guarantee that I will.
OK, so you agree that those who do not own land are effectively in the
same position as those who do not own their own air-sucking machines:
they live or die according to whether they give enough to those who
control access to the air or land.
>>If all of the land in the world is owned by 10 people, then those 10
>>people have the right to prevent the other 6 billion people in the
>>world from accessing land.
>
>Please, explain how 10 people could own all of the land without using
>force.
Of course they would use force, just as all the landowners now either
use force, or have government do it for them.
>>Yet if 10 people owned all of the air in the world, you would have a
>>problem with that.
>
>Please, explain how 10 people could own all of the air without using
>force.
?? He already has. They operate machines that suck in air and store
it.
>>Your position is horribly inconsistent.
>
>We'll see about that.
We already have. You just haven't figured it out yet.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On 12 Jan 2005 15:44:13 -0800, "ruet...@outgun.com"
><ruet...@outgun.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>As Roy and I have both already explained, ownership of property is
>>>>(among other things) the right to exclude other people from using
>>that
>>>>property.
>>
>>>But it is also the right to include me! Which means that I don't have
>>>to ask anyone permission to stand. Given that I need land to survive,
>>>owning a plot a land is a guarantee that I will.
>>
>>In other words, you have to pay someone to allow you to survive.
>
>If I own a plot of land, I have to pay no one to survive.
??? How did you come to own it, then??
>Ownership of
>land gives me a guarantee I will have a plot of land on where to live.
Just as not owning land guarantees you will not have any place to live
unless you pay someone else for permission to use one.
>>>>If all of the land in the world is owned by 10 people, then those 10
>>>>people have the right to prevent the other 6 billion people in the
>>>>world from accessing land.
>>
>>>Please, explain how 10 people could own all of the land without using
>>>force.
>>
>>By purchasing it.
>
>Why would everybody sell to those ten (or twenty or whatever) and die
>as a result? It makes no sense!
That is _exactly_ what we have been trying to explain to you...
>>>Please, explain how 10 people could own all of the air without using
>>>force.
>>
>>By running machines that bottle it. Now let me guess, you would
>>consider that to be using force. Why?
>
>Someone would be trying to kill me. You don't think that is using
>force?
No, your death or effective enslavement would simply be a more or less
unintended side effect of the private appropriation of the air
resource. Just as the deaths and enslavements of billions of other
people have been the more or less unintended side effects of the
private appropriation of the land resource.
>>>>Your position is horribly inconsistent.
>>>We'll see about that.
>>
>>We've already seen.
>
>Yeah, right!
Yep. Right.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On 12 Jan 2005 19:27:44 -0800, "ruet...@outgun.com"
><ruet...@outgun.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>In other words, you have to pay someone to allow you to survive.
>>
>>>If I own a plot of land, I have to pay no one to survive. Ownership of
>>>land gives me a guarantee I will have a plot of land on where to live.
>>
>>You had to pay the previous owner of the land to buy it.
>
>Or maybe not. Maybe I am the original owner?
No, you aren't.
Why don't you just admit the truth: you had to pay someone else for
the right to exist.
>>>>By running machines that bottle it. Now let me guess, you would
>>>>consider that to be using force. Why?
>>
>>>Someone would be trying to kill me. You don't think that is using
>>>force?
>>
>>So stop evading the question and explain why the air is different than
>>the land.
>
>I will do that as soon as you explain how someone can deprive me of
>land without killing me.
?? That's _his_ point!!
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<ruet...@outgun.com> wrote:
>>>So stop evading the question and explain why the air is different
>than
>>>the land.
>
>>I will do that as soon as you explain how someone can deprive me of
>>land without killing me.
>
>By denying you access to land that they own and refusing to sell it to
>you.
?? How would that not kill him, assuming there was no one else
willing to allow him on their land, either?
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<now...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> No, liar, you are interested in observables at all. You are
>> interested in evading and obscuring self-evident facts by demanding an
>> arbitrary -- and indefinitely escalating -- standard of "proof."
>
>I do not lie. I want economics to be as rigorous as quantum mechanics.
>Is that unreasonable?
Yes.
>When I see an economic theory -falsified- by a
>fact adverse to theoretical forecasts and predictions, then I will
>believe economics is a science. I have yet to see it.
You have not been paying attention, then.
>If an economic model does not predict correctly is is just plain wrong.
>It should be discarded.
Newtonian mechanics does not predict everything correctly. Should it
be discarded as "just plain wrong"?
-- Roy L
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> ro...@telus.net wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 04:30:31 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
> > <root@localhost.> wrote:
> >>What land monopoly? Who the heck owns all the land?
> > Land is a canonical example of monopoly in classical economics,
> Really. Where do land owners exert market power in the land market. You
> do not mean monopoly. You mean a means for explotation. I do not agree
> with the idea but I think that is what you mean. I doubt you have any
> better understanding of the term monopoly than you had of the term
> perfectly inelastic or whay the fact land does not have perfectly
> inelastic supply or perfectly inelastic demand some of the tax will be
> passed on to renters.
I find Roy confused. Or at least his general approach is not compelling
to me.
But on this point, he is, of course, quite correct.
"For Smith, monopolies have several causes, including the scarcity
of inputs (as in the case of natural products which require
scarce land that cannot be increased)... Bailey and Smith... both...
take monopoly to reflect barriers to entry rather than fixed
supply, and... they argue that monopolies (one or several sellers
who were protected from competition owing to the entry of other
sellers) and producers with special facilities (due to their
access to a superior grade of input or of some production facility)
who enjoy some degree of monopoly are far more numerous than cases
of what they call 'competition without restraint' or 'equal
competition', for which prices were determined by cost of production
alone."
-- A. K. Dutt, "Monopoly". _The Elgar Companion to Classical
Economics_. 1998.
--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
> > The premises have not changed. Air is necessary for life. Land is
> > necessary for life.
> Yes but land is scarce and air is not. This is the exact convolusion
> that lead modern economics away from classical theories of value to
> objective theories of value.
Another fumble.
Igor
No doubt land ownership of a particular resource could cause a monopoly
but I believe Roy was saying land ownership in itself is a monopoly
which is a quite different statement. There is no monolopy in the land
market. However, you are correct land ownership of key resources can
cause a monopoly to happen if the land ownership is concentrated in one
firm. Examples such as DeBeers and Alcola show this. The diamond
monopoly did come from ownership of most diamond mines. This in no way
meant DeBeers had a monopoly over land in South Africa or even
significant market power.
ruet...@outgun.com
>>>>than
>>>>the land.
>>>I will do that as soon as you explain how someone can deprive me of
>>>land without killing me.
>>By denying you access to land that they own and refusing to sell it
to
>>you.
>?? How would that not kill him, assuming there was no one else
>willing to allow him on their land, either?
It _would_ ultimately result in killing him. But I interpreted his
question to mean "you would have to kill me in order to deprive me of
land" not "depriving me of land would kill me". It would be consistent
with his macho militia image.
ruet...@outgun.com
win
>>>arguments when the premises keep changing, isn't it? But, why would
I
>>>not have access to land?
>> The premises have not changed. Air is necessary for life. Land is
>> necessary for life.
>Yes but land is scarce and air is not.
Air is not scarce??? Were you absent the day that photosynthesis was
covered in school? The only reason that air does not _appear_ to be
scarce is because we do not allow the private ownership of it.
>This is the exact convolusion
>that lead modern economics away from classical theories of value to
>objective theories of value. The classical economist could not explain
>why air or water were free while something like diamonds had a price.
>They had to use a two fold value system, use value and market value.
You consider marginal utility to be an objective measure?
>> Access to things which are necessary for life should not be
restricted.
>Complete normative statement which can not be proven. Food is also
>necessary for life do you propose it should all be free? Do you
propose
>no one can own food?
Go back and read my post. I make no claim that all of the premises I
listed are either valid or positive premises. I simply claim that
these are the premises that "Socialism Is A Mental Disease" (SIAMD)
holds. I listed them out to show that, given the set of premises he
holds, his conclusion was illogical. Were you also absent from school
on the day when structured logic was taught?
>> Conclusion:
>> Ownership of land should not be permitted. AND
>> Ownership of air should not be permitted.
>By your logic ownership of any food should not be permitted either.
Not by _my_ logic, by SIAMD's logic. I don't hold that "necessity for
life" should be a criteria for legitimacy of ownership. In fact, that
was one of the points that this thread was intended to address.
>>The problem with food and land is they are scarce without property
>>rights anyone can steal your product so there is no incentive to make
>>land productive or to produce food.
In the case of land, the exact opposite is true.
>> If all of the premises hold, that is the only logical conclusion
that
>> can be reached.
>Yes land will not used and people will starve if property rights are
not
>preserved.
Utter nonsense. People are starving _because_ of the property right
that has been created in land.
>> You seem to believe that all of the premises hold, but you reach the
>> conclusion that ownership of land should be permitted while
ownership
>> of air restricted. That is illogical.
>No need to reach the conclusion. Air is a free good it is not scarce.
I've already disproven that claim.
>There is no market for air because more air can be obtained costlessly
>than is wanted. There is no way to restrict use of the air and there
is
>no market for air.
Only because no property right is recognized for air. If someone
invented the air bottling machine tomorrow and convinced the government
to create property rights for air, that situation would change
overnight and we would be in much the same situation as we are with
land.
ruet...@outgun.com
>available than people want when price is zero. If price of land were
>zero people would want more than exist. Land is a scarce good so it is
>treated differently from air which is a free good. The two goods have
>absolutely no connection.
If people were permitted to capture air in large quantities and enjoy a
property right to the air they captured, that situation would change
overnight.
ruet...@outgun.com
You
>do not mean monopoly. You mean a means for explotation. I do not agree
>with the idea but I think that is what you mean.
The supply of land is fixed and it has all been appropriated. If you
desire to purchase land, you must purchase it from an existing
landowner. Contrast this situation with a competitive market such as
the market for personal computers where buyers have the choice of
buying not only existing computers but any number of new ones from any
number of manufacturers.
WInston Churchill summed it up best:
"Land monopoly is not the only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest
of monopolies - it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all
other forms of monopoly."
>I doubt you have any
>better understanding of the term monopoly than you had of the term
>perfectly inelastic or whay the fact land does not have perfectly
>inelastic supply or perfectly inelastic demand some of the tax will be
>passed on to renters.
Perfectly inelastic simply means that quantity does not vary with
price. Since the supply of land is fixed, the quantity cannot vary and
thererfore the price elasticity of supply for land is 0.
Mark Monson
"robert j. kolker" <now...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:34lms4F...@individual.net...
>
>
> ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Premises:
>> Air is necessary for life. AND
>> Land is necessary for life. AND
>> In order to acquire land or air, one must have access to it. AND
>> Ownership of something permits someone to restrict others' access to
>> it. AND
>
> come out of the barrel of a gun.
Naked force backed up by nothing but the threat of violence is a
prohibitably expensive way to maintain power on a large scale. Whether by
informed self-interest or skillfull deception, the great mass of a people
must consent to existing social relations for them to continue.
MM
ro...@telus.net
<now...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
>>>Define wealth quantiatively. Produce an algorithm for computing the
>>>wealth of an individual, a family or a firm. Show that your definition
>>>is empirically valid.
>>
>> Net Assets - Net Liabilities
>
>Do all assets have a monetary value?
Yes.
>If so how is it determined.
By the preferences of those who want the assets.
>I am interested in observable, not names of hypothetical quantities.
A bid is just as observable as a payment.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
?? Not surprisingly, that is not the point at all. Rue
_hypothesized_ a situation where air _became_ a scarce _resource_ (air
is of course not a good, as it is not a product) through being
"privatized" by the owners of air-compression machines. The parallel
with the situation of land, which has already largely been privatized,
should be obvious. But of course you refuse to understand anything
like that.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 04:30:31 GMT, Socialism is a Mental Disease
>> <root@localhost.> wrote:
>>
>>>On 11 Jan 2005 14:50:11 -0800, "ruet...@outgun.com"
>>><ruet...@outgun.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In my opinion, one of the most compelling means of highlighting the
>>>>injustice of land monopoly is the air monopoly analogy.
>>>
>>>What land monopoly? Who the heck owns all the land?
>>
>> Land is a canonical example of monopoly in classical economics,
>
>Really.
Yes. Really. You are of course ignorant of that fact, and determined
to remain so.
>Where do land owners exert market power in the land market.
?? Everywhere.
>You do not mean monopoly. You mean a means for explotation. I do not agree
>with the idea but I think that is what you mean. I doubt you have any
>better understanding of the term monopoly than you had of the term
>perfectly inelastic or whay the fact land does not have perfectly
>inelastic supply or perfectly inelastic demand some of the tax will be
>passed on to renters.
<sigh> Which must be why rents tend to be _lowest_ in the US states
with the _highest_ property tax rates, and vice versa...
> >but
>> IMO "monopoly" is something of a red herring. The issue is how (or
>> perhaps more accurately, if) one can exercise one's right to use a
>> natural resource, and somehow thereby eliminate other people's rights
>> to do the same.
>
>Of course it is you do not understand the definition. It has nothing to
>do with exclusive right to a single resource. Monopoly is defined as
>being the only seller of a good with no close substitutes.
Such as land parcels, each one of which is unique and unsubstitutable.
>Your proposal
>would make government the monopolist on land while at this point there
>is no monopolist.
As I said before, and you refused to know, monopoly is a red herring,
because whether there is a monopolist or not, the land rent is
unaffected.
>> What would you call it if a person obtained possession of enough of a
>> necessary natural resource like air or land so that others didn't have
>> access to all they wanted, except by paying him for it?
>
>A scarce good. Except one person would have to do it.
No, moron, that is of course false. The more people were doing it,
the scarcer the air would become. Duh.
>The point is with
>no ownership of land if land has a 0 price people would want more than
>exist.
False, nonsensical, and idiotic.
>Therefore it is scarce. At a 0 price there is much more air than
>people want that is why it is not scarce. You miss the basic foundation
>of what economic questions are and the concept of scarcity, which is
>what modern economics is built on.
<sigh> Please look at the subject line of this thread, and try to
figure out what we are discussing. Take your time. I hold out very
little hope that you will be able to.
>My guess is because you have never
>read a single textbook dealing with modern economics.
Are you trying to find out how many times you can be wrong in one
post?
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
Right. The latter was the view of the classical economists, as I
said, as you denied, and as Robert _proved_ above.
>There is no monolopy in the land
>market.
There is nothing but monopoly in the land market.
>However, you are correct land ownership of key resources can
>cause a monopoly to happen if the land ownership is concentrated in one
>firm. Examples such as DeBeers and Alcola show this. The diamond
>monopoly did come from ownership of most diamond mines. This in no way
>meant DeBeers had a monopoly over land in South Africa or even
>significant market power.
Why must you always disgrace yourself by blustering, evading, and
trying to change the subject after you have been proved wrong?
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
>>>Oh, so now instead of owning it access to land. It's very easy to win
>>>arguments when the premises keep changing, isn't it? But, why would I
>>>not have access to land?
>>
>> The premises have not changed. Air is necessary for life. Land is
>> necessary for life.
>
>Yes but land is scarce and air is not.
Please read the subject line of this thread. In the initial post, Rue
hypothesized an air-compressing machine able to "privatize" so much
air that people would not have enough to breathe except by buying
bottled air from the machine's owner. He drew a parallel with the
private ownership of land, which you of course are congenitally unable
to understand.
>This is the exact convolusion
>that lead modern economics away from classical theories of value to
>objective theories of value. The classical economist could not explain
>why air or water were free while something like diamonds had a price.
Completely false.
>They had to use a two fold value system, use value and market value.
Whereas now economists use utility and price....
>> Access to things which are necessary for life should not be restricted.
>
>Complete normative statement which can not be proven. Food is also
>necessary for life do you propose it should all be free? Do you propose
>no one can own food?
Food is a product. Land and air are not.
>> Conclusion:
>> Ownership of land should not be permitted. AND
>> Ownership of air should not be permitted.
>
>By your logic ownership of any food should not be permitted either.
Garbage.
>The problem with food and land is they are scarce
Wrong. The problem with food and land is that those who produce the
food must pay those who own the land in return for nothing but what
was already there with no help from the landowner.
>without property
>rights anyone can steal your product so there is no incentive to make
>land productive or to produce food.
ROTFL!! Would the prospect of starvation not count as an "incentive"?
>> If all of the premises hold, that is the only logical conclusion that
>> can be reached.
>
>Yes land will not used and people will starve if property rights are not
>preserved.
Ah. Right. That must be why public lands in Singapore and HK are not
used, and the people there are starving...
Doesn't incessantly making a fool of yourself ever get you down, Igor?
>> You seem to believe that all of the premises hold, but you reach the
>> conclusion that ownership of land should be permitted while ownership
>> of air restricted. That is illogical.
>
>No need to reach the conclusion. Air is a free good it is not scarce.
What if it were privatized by the owner of a compressing machine, as
land has been by the owners of land titles?
>There is no market for air because more air can be obtained costlessly
>than is wanted.
The same was true of land before it was privatized.
>There is no way to restrict use of the air and there is
>no market for air.
Please read the initial post of this thread.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<root@localhost.> wrote:
>On 13 Jan 2005 11:26:36 -0800, "ruet...@outgun.com"
><ruet...@outgun.com> wrote:
>>
>>>60% of all land in the US is under Federal control, meaning not
>>>privately owned.
>>
>>Nor is it available for you to simply take. Whether the land is owned
>>by a private individual or the government is irrelevant, the owner can
>>still legally deny you access to the land.
>
>Indeed! What is your solution, if both private owners and Government
>can deny me access, then?
Get yourself a government that will secure your right to access land.
>>>Please, explain how! Start with the fact that right now I am standing
>>>on a plot of land. What happoens next?
>>
>>Assuming you are not the owner of the plot of land, the owner asks you
>>to leave. If you refuse, he calls the police and has you forcibly
>>removed.
>
>Forcibly removed to *WHERE* if all the land is taken and no one wants
>me there?
Off this mortal coil, obviously.
>>Now stop with the diversions and answer the question.
>
>I'm afraid I can't answer nonsensical questions.
No, actually you're pretty good at answering nonsensical questions.
It's the sensical ones that seem to have you stymied.
-- Roy L
Les Cargill
Arnold has already covered the subject: "Yooo gaht what you waaant.
Give the people bauch they'r aiyr" (mispellings intented to crudely
represent his really melodic phrasing of the lines. "Air" does
not have three syllables in most representations). I beleive this
was in "Total Recall".
So he then became Lord Guv'nor of California.
--
Les Cargill
Robert Vienneau
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
> >>ro...@telus.net wrote:
According to classical economists, corn sold on land of better
qualities is not sold for its costs of production. Land of
a given quality will be owned by "one or several sellers who
[are] protected from competition owing to the entry of
other sellers".
Land of a given quality is like New York City taxicab medallions.
Neither are sold for their cost of production, but for the present
value of the economic rent they can receive. They can only obtain
that rent because they are monopolies, in the classical sense.
And the association of market power with exploitation is a
neoclassical conception of the 1920s. Pigou, I believe, and
Joan Robinson (in promulgating the theory of imperfect
competition) put forward this idea.
ruet...@outgun.com
qu...@syntac.net
ruet...@outgun.com wrote:
> I'm not a particularly fervent fan of pollution taxation.
I understand that Pollution is an externality, I also have doubts about
a pollution tax, which brings me to the question I asked.
Since a machine that poisons the are is exactly the same as a machine
that captures the air. And since you have indicated that you are
against the later, what is your proposal for the former.
I know that you raised this a comparison with monopolizing land, that
you weren't actually intending to discuss air capturing, but since I
agree with you regarding land, I won't let you weasel out of the air
question so easily.
Look at the industrial skyline, look at the back end of the automobiles
on the street, the air capture machine is actually here and actually
capturing your air.
What do geoists propose we do about it?
ruet...@outgun.com
As I said, forcing the people that poison the air to pay the cost they
are imposing on others is the correct approach; calculating that cost
is the difficult part.
wilfred
<ruet...@outgun.com> wrote in message
news:1105994564.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Calculating the cost (or at least an average cost) may in fact be relatively
easy, compared also to identifying those who have lost as a result of
pollution, and devising an efficient mechanism for a transfer payment.......