kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (02/06/85)
[This is a belated reply cross-posted from net.politics] In <375@ssc-vax.UUCP>, eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: > > The difference is between the land, which was not made by anyone, >and the fruits of human labor. Any land I might come to own will be paid for by the fruits of my labor. I therefore find your distinction between land and other kinds of property to be nugatory. > A system which seems reasonable to me >is to tax only land occupancy (land ownership if that's what you want >to call it), but not the improvements or any other personal property. Why should I have to pay good money to protection racketeers? >You may think of this as an indirect payment to the rest of society >for restricting their access to the land. Why do they have the right to access my land in the first place? Either they have the right to use all of my property (in which case I have no property rights anyway), or land is a special case (which I find hard to believe). Or do you have some other explanation which lacks the contradiction of having ownership but not control? > Not only would this be a feasible change in the method of >taxation, but it would be an economic incentive as well. Statement of belief: Manipulation of the economy via manipulation of taxation is improper. > ... > (if you are Libertarian, ... I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Libertarian party. >Dani Eder / Boeing / ssc-vax!eder -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (02/11/85)
> > > > The difference is between the land, which was not made by anyone, > >and the fruits of human labor. > > Any land I might come to own will be paid for by the fruits of > my labor. I therefore find your distinction between land and > other kinds of property to be nugatory. > There are only two ways to obtain a piece of land: from someone else who already owned it, or from the unclaimed land in a newly settled territory. In theory, most of the United States was 'bought' via treaty with the previous owners, the native Americans. I agree with your statement when it refers to this type of purchase. Take the case of present day Alaska, outside of the settled areas. There is no present owner of the land. Right now, anyone may roam unrestricted across the landscape, stop to drink from rivers, camp, etc. If you wish to homestead there, obviously you have ownership rights to whatever you bring with you, and just as obviously you have ownership rights to your cabin, and whatever else you may build with your hands. Now, how much land may you fence off and call your own? An acre? A square mile? A thousand square miles? Is it limited by the amount of fence you can build? What if you bring a hundred miles of fence with you, and tell people you want to raise caribou, who need lots of grazing room. Does this give you the right to take ownership of hundreds of square miles? The point I was trying to make in my previous article was that when formerly unclaimed land is homesteaded, the rest of society loses the right of access and use of the land that they formerly enjoyed. If there is no compensating payment made by the homesteader, what will limit a greedy, somewhat wealthy person from fencing off great chunks of land? He may use 'cattle grazing' or 'growing timber' as a rationale, but the main purpose is to grab as much land as fast as possible. This is not a hypothetical situation, it occurred many times in American history. The compensating payment to the rest of society for restricting their access to the land you claim can be considered a tax if you wish. If you make it a lump sum at the time of homesteading, and the funds are used to improve access for all to the remaining land (i.e. build roads), I personally would find it bearable. Having to compensate society for a loss I cause is one thing. Taxing what is the fruits of my own labor, and hence my life, is another, and is unbearable. Dani Eder / Boeing / ssc-vax!eder > Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" > ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] > kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (03/01/85)
[] From: eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) > ... > Take >the case of present day Alaska, outside of the settled areas. There >is no present owner of the land. Right now, anyone may roam unrestricted >across the landscape, stop to drink from rivers, camp, etc. If you >wish to homestead there, obviously you have ownership rights to whatever >you bring with you, and just as obviously you have ownership rights >to your cabin, and whatever else you may build with your hands. > > Now, how much land may you fence off and call your own? You don't need to fence any of it off to claim it, and you may claim as much as it not already owned by someone else. > [ Irrelevant threshold questions deleted. -KJM ] > Does this give you the right to take ownership >of hundreds of square miles? Rights are axiomatic, not "given" or withheld. Who would "give" it, anyway? > The point I was trying to make in my previous article was that >when formerly unclaimed land is homesteaded, the rest of society loses >the right of access and use of the land that they formerly enjoyed. If you want to secure right of access to unowned land, go claim it. >If there is no compensating payment made by the homesteader, what will >limit a greedy, somewhat wealthy person from fencing off great chunks >of land? Why should he/she be limited? > ... > Having to compensate society for >a loss I cause is one thing. Claiming something that is currently owned by nobody causes a loss to nobody. (Unless society is nobody, it does not own what nobody owns.) > Taxing what is the fruits of my own labor, >and hence my life, is another, and is unbearable. Once again, to buy land requires that one expend the fruits of one's labor. Taxing land ownership is thus taxing the fruits of one's labor, and is thus "unbearable". >Dani Eder / Boeing / ssc-vax!eder -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/06/85)
>> The point I was trying to make in my previous article was that >>when formerly unclaimed land is homesteaded, the rest of society loses >>the right of access and use of the land that they formerly enjoyed. > >If you want to secure right of access to unowned land, go claim it. But I don't want it; I just want to be able to use it, along with everyone else who likes that kind of place. I don't want to deny them the right to use it, and I don't want anyone denying me the right to use it. I have SOME rights, after all, even in Libertaria. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/06/85)
Martin, all you have to do is send your money to the ``preservation of wildness fund -- for preserving wildness for people to walk through''. Then *they* will buy it. And noone can claim ``eminent domain'' and put a parking lot there, either... Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (04/03/85)
[] From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) >>> The point I was trying to make in my previous article was that >>>when formerly unclaimed land is homesteaded, the rest of society loses >>>the right of access and use of the land that they formerly enjoyed. >> >>If you want to secure right of access to unowned land, go claim it. >But I don't want it; I just want to be able to use it, along with >everyone else who likes that kind of place. I don't want to deny >them the right to use it, and I don't want anyone denying me the >right to use it. I have SOME rights, after all, even in Libertaria. So form a co-op, or allow people to use the land whenever they want, or whatever... What's the big deal? -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]