The Marxist-vs-capitalist False Dichotomy

[Stars]

Each of the others is paid a only fraction of the total amount paid out by the exclusive rights holder. Thus, in order to gain exclusive right of access to land themselves, they will need more than merely the amount that has been paid to them previouysly for forgoing that access.

No - the total amount the others are paid is equal to the price paid by all exclusive rights holders

They can't be excluded by means of price, because they are receiving the price as payment.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Stars

[Stars]

The fact that under the present system this small group "owns" the land and under your propposed system, they would "lease" the land does not change the facts on the ground in both instances of a limited number of people having an unnassailable exclusivity to access it.

Just as smac said before the problem is not the use of land, it is the ownership of land, more specifically even than that, the problem is precisely 'who is paid for access to land and who isn't'. By making the 'person' who is paid for land everyone, you diffuse the problem in terms of justice.

[Guest Steve Cook]

No - the total amount the others are paid is equal to the price paid by the all exclusive rights holders

They can't be excluded by means of price, because they are receiving the price as payment.

I see what you are getting at here I think. You are saying that since all exclusive rights holders must pay all non exclusive rights holders a small amount, the total amount payable to any individual exclusive rights holder is sufficient to access the land themselves. Yes?

However, there is still the central problem that the exclusive rights holder is paying that levy in order to build up a surplus via the productivity that the exclusive rights of access to the land gives. They are then going to exchange this surplus for money from people who do not have exclusive access. This represents a transfer of some of the levy paid out by them back to them. Thus, they will, as a function of exclusive access build up a surplus that exceeds any surplus that could be built up by non exclusive rights holders. This puts them in a position of pushing up the price of the levy for exclusive rights to access such that non exclusive rights holders are eventually pushed completely out of the market place for gaining that access.

Thus, the tendency under your proposed system for the gradual concentration of wealth in the hands of a few people who have exclusive rights of access to the primary means of production is essentially the same as is it now

Edited September 8, 2009 by Steve Cook

[Injin]

No - the total amount the others are paid is equal to the price paid by the all exclusive rights holders

They can't be excluded by means of price, because they are receiving the price as payment.

Again you've assumed price as an objective matter that must be obeyed.

Why?

[Stars]

However, there is still the central problem

that the exclusive rights holder is paying that levy in order to build up a surplus via the productivity that the exclusive rights of access to the land gives. They are then going to exchange this surplus for money from people who do not have exclusive access. "

People who have chosen not to have much access and as a result collect a dividend

This represents a transfer of some of the levy paid out by them back to them.

It is not a transfer it is a trade. The levy payer has to earn the levy back by providing the buyer, who is spending his dividend, with suitable goods and services to his liking.

If i give you fifty pounds and you buy something off me for fifty pounds, which of us failed to benefit by the arrangment?

Edited September 8, 2009 by Stars

[Guest Steve Cook]

People who have chosen not to have much access and as a result collect a dividend

It is not a transfer it is a trade. The levy payer has to earn the levy back by providing the buyer, who is spending his dividend, with suitable goods and services to his liking.

If i give you fifty pounds and you buy something off me for fifty pounds, which of us failed to benefit by the arrangment?

You are ignoring the fact that the levy payer is not merely seeking to earn the levy back. He is seeking to earn the levy back plus a surplus. Otherwise he has no incentive to gain exclusive rights. That surplus must come from somehere. Where it comes from is part of the levy that was paid out for the access in the first place to the non exclusive rights holders. Thusd, diminishing their surplus.

Sure its a trade. However, the consequence of that trade is the transfer of some of that levy back to the exclusive rights holder. Thus creating a progressive concentration of wealth in the hands of exlcusive rights holders.

This would presumably resolve itself in one of two ways. Either all of the non exclusive rights holders would cotton on to this lark and all try to all gain exclusive access themsleves. In which case your system breaks down. Or, alternatively, the current exclusive rights holders bribe the authorities into passing legislation to ensure that "everyone else" was not allowed exclusive access before the current exclusive right holders had ammassed enough of a surplus to enable them to hold onto their access by either superior purchasing power alone or by the direct force that such a surplus allows them to afford.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Steve Cook

[Stars]

I see what you are getting at here I think. You are saying that since all exclusive rights holders must pay all non exclusive rights holders a small amount, the total amount payable to any individual exclusive rights holder is sufficient to access the land themselves. Yes?

It would be sufficient for an individual to access their equal share of land (by definition)

'The others' would i imagine be some large group who had decided not to bother occupying land and instead collected dividend. And you hypothise 'the elite' would be a small group (lets say 1000 people) who occupied most of the land and were therefore paying a gigantic rent to the others

The others between them could theoretically outbid the elite and get possession of most of the land if they wanted it by using their dividend (though this might not be immediate, it would be relentless and unstoppable if everyone decided to join in). There really is no reason at all to do this though because land ownership would no longer hold a net economic advantage - in itself -.

[Guest Steve Cook]

It would be sufficient for an individual to access their equal share of land (by definition)

'The others' would i imagine be some large group who had decided not to bother occupying land and instead collected dividend. And you hypothise 'the elite' would be a small group (lets say 1000 people) who occupied most of the land and were therefore paying a gigantic rent to the others

The others between them could theoretically outbid the elite and get possession of most of the land if they wanted it by using their dividend (though this might not be immediate, it would be relentless and unstoppable if everyone decided to join in). There really is no reason at all to do this though because land ownership would no longer hold a net economic advantage - in itself -.

Land ownership would not hold a net economic advantage. However, exclusive right to access that land would. Which is the whole point of ownership under the present system.

If it didn't there would be no point paying a levy for holding exclusive access just as, under the present system, if their was no economic advantage to paying for ownership, their would be no incentive to own.

Also, your suggestion that the others could, if they wished, pool their resources and and outbid the exclusive rights holders is not essentially different from the current situation where the others could, if they wished, pool their resources and outbid the current owners.

However, theory and practice, as our current system attests, are not the same thing.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Steve Cook

[Stars]

You are ignoring the fact that the levy payer is not merely seeking to earn the levy back. He is seeking to earn the levy back plus a surplus. Otherwise he has no incentive to gain exclusive rights.

If he wants the extra, he has to earn it by producing more ..again it is not a transfer to him

That surplus must come from somehere. Where it comes from is part of the levy that was paid out for the access in the first place to the non exclusive rights holders. Thusd, diminishing their surplus.

It comes from payments for services he provides to others. Again it is not transferred to him because he has to earn in trade by providing others with value - which the take away and keep.

Sadly, i think you might be drifting badly into marxist circularity

Sure its a trade. However, the consequence of that trade is the transfer of some of that levy back to the exclusive rights holder. Thus creating a progressive concentration of wealth in the hands of exlcusive rights holders.

It isn't a transfer because it is a trade. in a trade the wealth is moving in both directions. You keep trying to infer that the money is the the only thing moving and so its is all going back to the levy payer...it aint

[Stars]

Land ownership would not hold a net economic advantage. However, exclusive right to access that land would. Which is the whole point of ownership under the present system.

If it didn't there would be no point paying a levy for holding exclusive access just as, under the present system, if their was no economic advantage to paying for ownership, their would be no incentive to own.

Just as there is presently no point in renting land??

Renting land is not considered to have an intrinsic economic advantage because you pay the market price of the advantage of possesiuon (which is what you get). It is still useful though, and people pay the price.

Also, your suggestion that the others could, if they wished, pool their resources and and outbid the exclusive rights holders is not essentially different from the current situation where the others could, if they wished, pool their resources and outbid the current owners.

Presently, they would have to save up from working in their jobs. The point about the citizens dividend is that it is economic power they hold without working.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Stars

[Tob the Blether]

It would be sufficient for an individual to access their equal share of land (by definition)

'The others' would i imagine be some large group who had decided not to bother occupying land and instead collected dividend. And you hypothise 'the elite' would be a small group (lets say 1000 people) who occupied most of the land and were therefore paying a gigantic rent to the others

The others between them could theoretically outbid the elite and get possession of most of the land if they wanted it by using their dividend (though this might not be immediate, it would be relentless and unstoppable if everyone decided to join in). There really is no reason at all to do this though because land ownership would no longer hold a net economic advantage - in itself -.

The point about the citizens dividend is that it is economic power they hold without working.

How does a levy collected from land-occupiers differ from tax? Who collects, administers and distributes this levy as the citizens dividend? How is a citizen's dividend collected without working different from state benefits?

A citizen's dividend / universal allowance, nonetheless, is a neat way for libertarians to side-step the problem of initial acquisition and it will be interesting to see how this policy plays out in Libya, where it is in the process of being rolled out, along with the abolition of all state ministries except those involved in internal and external security and foreign relations.

Additionally, how do you get there from here? It's taken Libya 40 years of very nasty dictatorial rule, a resource rich geography and a sparse population (and state-owned land) to get to this point. What hope for our crowded resource-poor island with its byzantine land tenure and liberal democracy?

I think we're all agreed that some sort of land and monetary reform is required, fine. How do we agitate the populace in support of this, when what most people want is just to be left alone to get on as best they can and keep up with the Joneses? Most people cannot see that they are truly slaves, albeit in quite nice cages - all they care about is that their cage is at least as nice as their neigbours - that's the only sort of equality and fairness that they care about.

What is to be done?

[D.C.]

Owning land is the problem, not using it. Before we invented agriculture people took from the land what they needed. It made for a Bear Grylls lifestyle with an insecure food supply. By fencing off and working some land you could then provide a modicum of control over production, however the downside was that others were denied access to that land. That is when the problems started, and we have been fighting over the land ever since, only now it is done by proxy, namely, money.

The concept of territory is found throughout the animal kingdom.

Not just humans or chimps.

Why do you think a cat 'marks it's territory'?

So the farmer uses a fence and a shotgun, the cat uses pee to determine borders, tooth & clam & spit & hiss to defend it.

[Stars]

How does a levy collected from land-occupiers differ from tax? Who collects, administers and distributes this levy as the citizens dividend? How is a citizen's dividend collected without working different from state benefits?

The primary difference is that it doesn't distort economic incentives, because the 'tax' is effectively already levied privately by landlords in the price of land. So you have a way of collecting revenue which doesn't create additional costs for producers - land is not produced and so the charging for land is not strictly part of production itself.

Secondly, because the revenue comes from a source of value the government has a large hand in creating, it creates positive feedback for good governance and negative feedback for bad governance.

Thirdly, because the destructive, speculative part of the incentive to buy real estate is removed by the tax, the price of real estate lowers and stabilises

Fourthly, because real estate now has a lower price, the artificially high barrier that stops employees replacing employers is removed and so market competition acts naturally to raise wages at the same time lowering employee's costs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

A citizen's dividend / universal allowance, nonetheless, is a neat way for libertarians to side-step the problem of initial acquisition and it will be interesting to see how this policy plays out in Libya, where it is in the process of being rolled out, along with the abolition of all state ministries except those involved in internal and external security and foreign relations.

The cd is secondary to this policy, a CD only makes any sense at all with a land tax

For instance, Implementing a cd by taxing work, wages and trade is pure lunacy, because you are paying people to do nothing by penalising producers

With a land tax, The cd is way of giving the power of land back to everyone equally and having a minimum state.

Additionally, how do you get there from here? It's taken Libya 40 years of very nasty dictatorial rule, a resource rich geography and a sparse population (and state-owned land) to get to this point. What hope for our crowded resource-poor island with its byzantine land tenure and liberal democracy?

The uk's biggest problem is the abusive taxation, not the lack of a cd

Remove the taxation from work and trade and place it instead on resource monopoly

By the sounds of it, Libya will end up a basket case unless it is funding the cd from resource revenues

Edited September 9, 2009 by Stars

[Tob the Blether]

The primary difference is that it doesn't distort economic incentives, because the 'tax' is effectively already levied privately by landlords in the price of land. So you have a way of collecting revenue which doesn't create additional costs for producers - land is not produced and so the charging for land is not strictly part of production itself.

Secondly, because the revenue comes from a source of value the government has a large hand in creating, it creates positive feedback for good governance and negative feedback for bad governance.

Thirdly, because the destructive, speculative part of the incentive to buy real estate is removed by the tax, the price of real estate lowers and stabilises

Fourthly, because real estate now has a lower price, the artificially high barrier that stops employees replacing employers is removed and so market competition acts naturally to raise wages at the same time lowering employee's costs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

The cd is secondary to this policy, a CD only makes any sense at all with a land tax

For instance, Implementing a cd by taxing work, wages and trade is pure lunacy, because you are paying people to do nothing by penalising producers

With a land tax, The cd is way of giving the power of land back to everyone equally and having a minimum state.

The uk's biggest problem is the abusive taxation, not the lack of a cd

Remove the taxation from work and trade and place it instead on resource monopoly

By the sounds of it, Libya will end up a basket case unless it is funding the cd from resource revenues

Thanks for your reply - you've explained it beautifully. Libya's CD is indeed funded exclusively from burgeoning O&G revenues.

What program would you implement to for us to get there from here? How can this be done without popular revolutionary action against property-owning vested interests? How would you deal with the forces of reaction?

[Cogs]

The concept of territory is found throughout the animal kingdom.

Not just humans or chimps.

Why do you think a cat 'marks it's territory'?

So the farmer uses a fence and a shotgun, the cat uses pee to determine borders, tooth & clam & spit & hiss to defend it.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mat...ic.html#natural

[Harry Sacks]

It would be hard to reform land ownership without monetary reform. I think a limit on acreage is what's required, but without debt free state issued money this wouldn't work. It's the artificial scarcity of money that puts the growth, or economy of scale bias on agriculture, forcing small farms out.

An economy based on resources not money is the only way forward. Conventional economics does not "price" natural capital realistically.

[Tob the Blether]

It would be hard to reform land ownership without monetary reform. I think a limit on acreage is what's required, but without debt free state issued money this wouldn't work. It's the artificial scarcity of money that puts the growth, or economy of scale bias on agriculture, forcing small farms out.

An economy based on resources not money is the only way forward. Conventional economics does not "price" natural capital realistically.

What program would you implement to for us to get there from here? How can this be done without popular revolutionary action against property-owning vested interests? How would you deal with the forces of reaction?

[HumanAction]

I cant see how land taxes could ever really work in the way that land tax advocates seem to envisage. Exclusive access is always going to confer power advantages and those power advantages will be translated into the ability to operate coercively.

No land tax payment received by those without exclusive access will ever be enough to compensate for that loss of access. This should be fairly obvious to anyone who steps out of their ivory tower and considers the issues practically. Practically speaking the land tax itself would need administering and that would cost, this guarantees that the amount received by non-exclusive access holders will never be enough to purchase access even if the exclusive access rights holder was to offer access at cost price. In reality of course the land holder will also incur costs and will likely want to receive a profit from the deal, all this will drive the cost way above what is received as any land tax dividend.

The end situation would not be very different from land ownership as it currently exists.

[Stars]

What program would you implement to for us to get there from here? How can this be done without popular revolutionary action against property-owning vested interests? How would you deal with the forces of reaction?

The elimination of taxes on work, trade and comerce is probably the simplest route, because it corners the government into collecting revenues the only other way it can. If workers got together and campaigned for taxes to be taken of their production, the government would have no choice but to tax corrrectly.

[Stars]

I cant see how land taxes could ever really work in the way that land tax advocates seem to envisage. Exclusive access is always going to confer power advantages and those power advantages will be translated into the ability to operate coercively.

No land tax payment received by those without exclusive access will ever be enough to compensate for that loss of access.

Except the price of access itself - which is what is paid.

[HumanAction]

Except the price of access itself - which is what is paid.

Which means what exactly? My best guess is that you envision some central body setting and enforcing the price? Your giving whoever makes and enforces such decisions a rather large power base though, I foresee administration getting very expensive indeed if that is your position.

[Stars]

It would be hard to reform land ownership without monetary reform. I think a limit on acreage is what's required, but without debt free state issued money this wouldn't work. It's the artificial scarcity of money that puts the growth, or economy of scale bias on agriculture, forcing small farms out.

My apologies, but I think this is just wrong.

Imo the money system is less relevant than is often assumed

Money is seen as the problem because everyone feels problems as a lack of money and so it seems to make sense to say 'the problem is money'. The thing is the problem is not really money, the actual problem is lack of access to your own liberty (land) which is caused by a high price of liberty (land), which is caused by speculation in the future price of liberty pushing the price higher than can be comfortably afforded by the productive. No matter how much money there was, this would always happen with our present tenure / tax system. By giving the price of liberty (land) back to everyone equally, we give everyone an equal measure of access to liberty as a human right and remove the incentive to raise its price with speculation.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Stars

[Stars]

Which means what exactly? My best guess is that you envision some central body setting and enforcing the price? Your giving whoever makes and enforces such decisions a rather large power base though, I foresee administration getting very expensive indeed if that is your position.

No, the price of access to land is collected by the tax because it is a tax on the price of access to land. It is distributed equally and so everyone gets their equal share of the price of access to land.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Stars

[HumanAction]

No, the price of access to land is collected by the tax because it is a tax on the price of access to land. It is distributed equally and so everyone gets their equal share of the price of access to land.

Ahh I thoughgt you were trying to address the difficulties, that would be the part of my post you ignored , I should have realised you were just parroting dogma with no regard to reality.....

[Authoritarian]

I cant see how land taxes could ever really work in the way that land tax advocates seem to envisage. Exclusive access is always going to confer power advantages and those power advantages will be translated into the ability to operate coercively.

No land tax payment received by those without exclusive access will ever be enough to compensate for that loss of access.

This wouldn't be the case.

At the moment in City I live there's a vibrant busking community spread around the place all competeing for the passing trade of shoppers in the area. As would be expected there are two or three hotspots that they all want because their advantageous location ensures a captive audience and the result is that sometimes two or three sets of buskers may congregate around the same spot, wasting time waiting for their opportunity to busk.

If we applied the land tax to this scenario the results would be very different. Lets say instead of encouraging them to fight over the resource each spot is allocated a price based on its value and at the end of each day the buskers shared out the money. There would be no advantage whatsover for holding a certain place away from somebody else and no ill feeling towards those buskers because they would receive no freebie for doing so. More time and energy can be spent on busking rather than standing around and the surplus energy could be spent on marginal spots which raise aggregate productivity.

The price of each spot (if it were to have a capitalsiation price) also drops significantly because of the way the market conditions have changed to stop unfair powers racking up to owners of certian locations.