How You Calculate The True Value Of A 'house'

[Injin]

The fact that one person holds land in a usefull way (using whatever rationale) represents a loss of liberty for another.

How?

The best you can hope for in the case of land is to spread the coercion equitably in a compromise, so the inevitable liberty loss caused by landownership is spread evenly. One way to do this is to make people pay everyone else market prices for the coercion rights they hold.

You'd need to prove the loss of liberty first, then make the case that coercion was the best way to solve it, then after that solve the problem of market pricing where one party doesn't want to sell.

Steep.

[Injin]

1) The liberty to be on the earth is diminished if one person can constrict another's movements on it.

How exactly? If you build a house in Surrey (for example ) how does that stop my liberty in any practical sense? I have never been there.

2) If one person cannot constrict another (as in 1) by some arrangement, the possession of land becomes useless and one person may take another's liberty by reaping what they have created on the land

But I can build a house and let you clamber all over the area it resides in, only charging you for damage ot my property. They aren't in fact related.

See above

In summary -

We need a certain amount of coercion for the possession of land in a useful way – but the possession of land is a practical necessity and its absence results in other forms of coercion

Coercion isn't defense. Coercion is starting a fight, not protecting what's yours.

The equitable thing to do is to spread the resultant coercion load evenly between people in a compromise between opposing rights; those that hold coercion rights pay everyone else market prices for them.

How?

Any agency you set up to do that will be de facto owner of everything, including you.

The problems are solved more easily by accepting that a practical compromise between absolute physical liberty and the ability to posses land is logicaly necessary.

On the natural liberty side, the compromise is that one MUST sell absolute physical liberty, though one may use this price to pay to have one's equal portion of liberty with no further payment from yourself.

But you arent stopped by the idea of ownership, you are stopped by other human beings using violence on you.

[Injin]

I'm not looking at him, i'm looking at his power to charge for another's work.

Which he doesn't have without the mugger.

So the mugger is the problem, not what he spends his mugging money on.

[miccage]

14 times the annual rent! Easy.

[Stars]

How?

1) The liberty to be on the earth is diminished if one person can constrict another's movements on it.

2) If one person cannot constrict another (as in 1) by some arrangement, the possession of land becomes useless and one person may take another's liberty by reaping what they have created on the land

You'd need to prove the loss of liberty first, then make the case that coercion was the best way to solve it,

See above

In summary -

We need a certain amount of coercion for the possession of land in a useful way – but the possession of land is a practical necessity and its absence results in other forms of coercion

The equitable thing to do is to spread the resultant coercion load evenly between people in a compromise between opposing rights; those that hold coercion rights pay everyone else market prices for them.

then after that solve the problem of market pricing where one party doesn't want to sell.

Steep.

The problems are solved more easily by accepting that a practical compromise between absolute physical liberty and the ability to posses land is logicaly necessary.

On the natural liberty side, the compromise is that one MUST sell absolute physical liberty, though one may use this price to pay to have one's equal portion of liberty with no further payment from yourself.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Stars

[Stars]

There you go then.

He's benefiting but not doing it - so why bother looking at him?

I'm not looking at him, i'm looking at his power to charge for another's work.

[Stars]

How exactly? If you build a house in Surrey (for example ) how does that stop my liberty in any practical sense? I have never been there.

Surrey is not the only place where land is owned..

But I can build a house and let you clamber all over the area it resides in, only charging you for damage ot my property. They aren't in fact related.

The charge for damage to your property becomes a charge for access to the land because the land is held hostage by the property. If something cannot be gained without a transaction then it becomes part of what is transacted. If I cannot have my liberties without trabsactinbg with you, then you get to charge me for my liberties – even if what is transacted is a piece of paper.

Coercion isn't defense. Coercion is starting a fight, not protecting what's yours.

My liberties are my property - if your work is in the way of my liberties i am defending my liberties and what is mine by pushing your work out of my way and perhaps even sending you a bill for my inconvenience. Unfortunately, in doing so, i am also attacking what is yours. This dilemma works for both sides of the equation; by defending your work attached to the land or charging for access / damage to it, you remove my liberties with force. The answer is a compromise that allows coercion for the sake of order, but makes the coercer pay the coerced for it.

Any agency you set up to do that will be de facto owner of everything, including you.

Not if it is set up to have no discretion and a liability precisely equal to the size of its privilege.

The agency owes the population the value of the land, and is given the privilege of collecting the value of land from those who have land coercion rights.

But you arent stopped by the idea of ownership, you are stopped by other human beings using violence on you.

I’m not sure where this notion comes from – of course you aren’t stopped by the idea of property rather its implementation and enforcement.

[Stars]

Which he doesn't have without the mugger.

So the mugger is the problem, not what he spends his mugging money on.

Err he is the mugger ..he is making access to something he isn't providing provisional on paying him

A highwayman does exactly the same.

[Injin]

Surrey is not the only place where land is owned..

This doesn't really address the point I made. how does you owning property in places I have never been and can't actually get to hinder my liberties?

The charge for damage to your property becomes a charge for access to the land because the land is held hostage by the property. If something cannot be gained without a transaction then it becomes part of what is transacted. If I cannot have my liberties without trabsactinbg with you, then you get to charge me for my liberties – even if what is transacted is a piece of paper.

Not if you don't do any damage, it doesn't.

My liberties are my property - if your work is in the way of my liberties i am defending my liberties and what is mine by pushing your work out of my way and perhaps even sending you a bill for my inconvenience. Unfortunately, in doing so, i am also attacking what is yours. This dilemma works for both sides of the equation; by defending your work attached to the land or charging for access / damage to it, you remove my liberties with force. The answer is a compromise that allows coercion for the sake of order, but makes the coercer pay the coerced for it.

And how are you going to persuade the coercive to play nice once you've set him up?

Not if it is set up to have no discretion and a liability precisely equal to the size of its privilege.

The agency owes the population the value of the land, and is given the privilege of collecting the value of land from those who have land coercion rights.

Given that values are subjective, this is impossible.

I’m not sure where this notion comes from – of course you aren’t stopped by the idea of property rather its implementation and enforcement.

Then it's the enforcers that you should be looking at, as I said.

[Injin]

Err he is the mugger ..he is making access to something he isn't providing provisional on paying him

A highwayman does exactly the same.

He can only do that because of a third party making it possible.

The 15th Earl of whelksbury or whatever isn't tooled up and forcing you off his land, he's making use of a social agency of violence.

This agency is the actual source of the problems.

[Stars]

This doesn't really address the point I made. how does you owning property in places I have never been and can't actually get to hinder my liberties?

By removing your liberty to go to these places?

Not if you don't do any damage, it doesn't.

And as the definition of damage is up to the owner, your presence can cause damage of any amount and this will happily transact up to the market price for being there (which is the price of the land) Like i said, you have confered land ownership but are using a differrent set of words to describe the same abusive relationship.

And how are you going to persuade the coercive to play nice once you've set him up?

I have no idea why you think i have to do anything in particular with the coercive

Given that values are subjective, this is impossible.

Sigh..more avoidance

Exchange the word 'value' for 'price', recalculate

The reason the price of land is important is that it is the market price of human liberty.

Then it's the enforcers that you should be looking at, as I said.

He is directing, but perhaps not supplying, the force...so what on earth do you mean by 'enforcer'?

Edited June 3, 2009 by Stars

[Stars]

He can only do that because of a third party making it possible.

The 15th Earl of whelksbury or whatever isn't tooled up and forcing you off his land, he's making use of a social agency of violence.

This agency is the actual source of the problems.

This is true, but is more or less a recent refinement of the theft

The robbers managed to get the victims to fund the machinations of the theft itself (to provide them with crow bars and swag bags through taxation)

Without this refinement, the theft does not disapear.

[eric pebble]

Calculate the TRUE value of a house?

MOST people in the UK earn no more than £18-20k....... HUGE numbers of people earn no more than £13-£16k....

Multiply that by 3

and THAT is the TRUE value of the average run of the mill 2/3 bed property..... No more.

[Guest มร หล&#3]

Calculate the TRUE value of a house?

MOST people in the UK earn no more than £18-20k....... HUGE numbers of people earn no more than £13-£16k....

Multiply that by 3

and THAT is the TRUE value of the average run of the mill 2/3 bed property..... No more.

Go to post #73.

The price of something is not necessarily based on a persons ability to pay.

These things cost in materials and labour. As well as land.

[Injin]

By removing your liberty to go to these places?

But they don't remove your liberty to go to those places.

And as the definition of damage is up to the owner, your presence can cause damage of any amount and this will happily transact up to the market price for being there (which is the price of the land) Like i said, you have confered land ownership but are using a differrent set of words to describe the same abusive relationship.

Damage is empirical, that is it's up to facts and evidence, not opinion.

I have no idea why you think i have to do anything in particular with the coercive

Because you keep making excuses for them.

Sigh..more avoidance

Exchange the word 'value' for 'price', recalculate

price can only be found by two peopel trading. Their prices are not binding upon me. you buy a house for £10,00 or a million pounds - that's great but is in no way binding on me.

The reason the price of land is important is that it is the market price of human liberty.

I said land cannot be owned, property can. Mine is an empirical stance, I am not defending how things currently are. I am merely seeking to show you that property ownership is possible both ethically and logically.

He is directing, but perhaps not supplying, the force...so what on earth do you mean by 'enforcer'?

So what?

If John tells Bob to punch you in the face and he then does so, you are saying you would blame John for the punch?

[weebag]

So what?

If John tells Bob to punch you in the face and he then does so, you are saying you would blame John for the punch?

They are both to blame.

[Stars]

But they don't remove your liberty to go to those places.

The problem here for me is multiplying ambiguity, i have to intuit what context your statements might apply to, and then present the correct form of argument to address that context.

Are you talking about the injin property scheme, in which people can walk about and use others' property without their permission; so long as repairs are made; or are you talking about property as it is presently enforced and understood?

Damage is empirical, that is it's up to facts and evidence, not opinion.

Damage is not empirical because damage to property is a reduction in the subjective valuation by the owner. So unless, you are proposing some process outside trade and property, the damage is subjective and a matter for the owner. Btw, the same terrible confusion appears to pollute your understanding of the nature of interest and loans. The point being that, if the owner decides the amount of damage then the owner makes a charge for damage which reflects everything that transacts with the deal and as use of the land by the user depends on the deal, it is one of the things the owner is enabled to price in to the deal.

You then counter by saying that somebody has no right to damage another's property and so they should compensate through trade, and although this is true on its own, it ignores the fact that by covering land in your property and thereby making access to that land contingent on refunding you for 'damage', you have at the same time distanced another from their liberties - damaged their property. The best way to illustrate this in your terms, is to imagine that your rules apply and you have built a house and so technically the use of the land under the house becomes contingent on your charge for damage to your house. Now somebody else does the same trick to you; they build a dome over your house, and so make your use of your liberties (your house) contingent on paying damages to his property. What we have here is the basic atomic ingredients for the very rent seeking we are both trying to avoid. Both of you are now set up in a competitive race to charge the other for land - none of it is actualy productive, because nobody is producing any land and a portion of what is produced is now simply an artifice to distance someone else from their property / liberties. What is missing from your analysis is that both of you have an innate natural right to access land despite the property created by the other that monoplises land.

price can only be found by two peopel trading. Their prices are not binding upon me. you buy a house for £10,00 or a million pounds - that's great but is in no way binding on me.

The price of land is creates a compulsion for anyone purchasing the use of land (their liberties); it creates no compulsion for a seller or someone who does not need to purchase the use of land.

The objective of rent sharing is to spread the compulsive power of land evenly - to share liberty

I said land cannot be owned, property can.

This i commend you for entirely

Mine is an empirical stance, I am not defending how things currently are. I am merely seeking to show you that property ownership is possible both ethically and logically.

Yes, you are trying to be empirical - to follow the transactions and the nature of what is being transacted - but you keep missing great chunks.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Stars

[Michael]

an old landlords' rule of thumb was the 12 and 8 rule........which means you sell when a house is worth more than 12 times its annual rent (rental yield drops to 8.33%) and buy when it falls to only 8 times its annual rent (when rental yield rises to 12.5%)

[Injin]

They are both to blame.

>Engage mothers voice<

"If he told you to jump in a stream, would you???"

>Mothers voice off<

[Injin]

The problem here for me is multiplying ambiguity, i have to intuit what context your statements might apply to, and then present the correct form of argument to address that context.

Are you talking about the injin property scheme, in which people can walk about and use others' property without their permission; so long as repairs are made; or are you talking about property as it is presently enforced and understood?

I am outlining why I reason that property can be owned.

From there, it follows that your own position isn't quite accurate.

Damage is not empirical because damage to property is a reduction in the subjective valuation by the owner. So unless, you are proposing some process outside trade and property, the damage is subjective and a matter for the owner. Btw, the same terrible confusion appears to pollute your understanding of the nature of interest and loans. The point being that, if the owner decides the amount of damage then the owner makes a charge for damage which reflects everything that transacts with the deal and as use of the land by the user depends on the deal, it is one of the things the owner is enabled to price in to the deal.

Damage, in order to be provable to other humans, has to be objective. No one can be made whole for the loss of phantoms of the mind. no sane person would even make the attempt.

You then counter by saying that somebody has no right to damage another's property and so they should compensate through trade, and although this is true on its own, it ignores the fact that by covering land in your property and thereby making access to that land contingent on refunding you for 'damage', you have at the same time distanced another from their liberties - damaged their property. The best way to illustrate this in your terms, is to imagine that your rules apply and you have built a house and so technically the use of the land under the house becomes contingent on your charge for damage to your house. Now somebody else does the same trick to you; they build a dome over your house, and so make your use of your liberties (your house) contingent on paying damages to his property. What we have here is the basic atomic ingredients for the very rent seeking we are both trying to avoid. Both of you are now set up in a competitive race to charge the other for land - none of it is actualy productive, because nobody is producing any land and a portion of what is produced is now simply an artifice to distance someone else from their property / liberties. What is missing from your analysis is that both of you have an innate natural right to access land despite the property created by the other that monoplises land.

I have a right to wander over property, as long as I don't damage it.

The price of land is creates a compulsion for anyone purchasing the use of land (their liberties); it creates no compulsion for a seller or someone who does not need to purchase the use of land.

The objective of rent sharing is to spread the compulsive power of land evenly - to share liberty

This i commend you for entirely

Yes, you are trying to be empirical - to follow the transactions and the nature of what is being transacted - but you keep missing great chunks.

I guess I am.

let me think about it some more, I will come back to this when I have thoought on it.

[weebag]

>Engage mothers voice<

"If he told you to jump in a stream, would you???"

>Mothers voice off<

But im not John or Bob am I?

If someone hires a person to murder another person for revenge, you say that the person doing the hiring is entirely innocent of ahy wrong-doing??

[Caveat Mortgagor]

A house down the road sold last year for 200k.

Prices havent been hit round here.

Obviously our house is nicer than that one 'cos.... er....... well it just is alright!

We should aim to get 230k for it. We will put it on at 235k and someone will think they are getting a bargain.

[weebag]

But im not John or Bob am I?

If someone hires a person to murder another person for revenge, you say that the person doing the hiring is entirely innocent of ahy wrong-doing??

No reply to this one Injin? I was looking forward to your atempt to answer this one!

[Injin]

But im not John or Bob am I?

If someone hires a person to murder another person for revenge, you say that the person doing the hiring is entirely innocent of ahy wrong-doing??

Hiring is different than asking, no?

[weebag]

Hiring is different than asking, no?

Differnt acts, but if the result is the same (the death of another person), then both people are responsible.

The murder (or punch) would not have happened without the asking or hiring (makes no difference).

You disagree - which is REALLY weird!

I can ask someone to kill you, and if they do, I am completely innocent!