The core Georgist principle is the equal right to use Nature (or Land, which therefore includes land). This is sometimes referred to as “common property.” From this principle, it follows that the economic rent of Land (matter, energy, space - anything natural) is for the benefit of all. This is apart from Labor (man made entropy changes to Nature). Labor is therefore what's true property.
The core Georgist principle
With
that laid out, we can see what is justly private and justly common.
Crops don’t just grow. They involve labor (entropy changes). What
natural is in them are in a configuration in space and time because of
the laborer’s labor (entropy changes). Crops get to the marketplace
because of labor (entropy changes). The things of Nature in the crop are
merely borrowed but there is justly privately owned labor mixed in it.
Usually for convenience we just say the crop is privately owned because
the borrowed Nature has almost no economic rent - or as Locke puts it,
there is enough and as good (of the matter, energy, space used) for
others.
Certain
aspects of Nature however generate economic rent. Consider the land the
crop was raised in. If it was land where there are no developments, the
market rent of comparable empty land may be zero. That is, someone who
wants to build a house or grow crops can find land freely. This is not
the case in highly developed areas where there may be only a few empty
lots available. The market rent of land (in its natural state or raw) is
therefore what a user owes everyone else for using the land. It is the
value that he enjoys for himself to use and is denying others while he
is using it.
The right to use nature vs. private property on nature
Natural law can be distilled to two things: the right to life (equal in dignity) and the right to use nature (also referred to as common property). Without these two assumptions, there can be no liberty. Other derivative true rights come from these two. For example, the right to speech comes from the right to use nature - consider, vocal speech is the right to use the air to generate sound waves to convey ideas to another person. Hence temporal and intermittent possession, control, exclusion, enjoyment are already covered by the right to use.
However,
a property right to land (and Nature in general) indefinitely entails:
the right of possession + the right of control + the right of exclusion +
the right of enjoyment + the right of disposition. There's no universal
natural law that says people may have this "bundle of rights" to land -
but many here pretend it is natural law. In fact, property rights on
land is merely a claim backed by a threat of force, and therefore by
aggression and nothing else.
The
problem is that property rights on land harms others; this is
measurable by market means as it is the economic rent a title holder
demands from others either to use the land (rental), or to have the
title transferred to them (exchange), or without the payment of rental
or the full amount of the market price, the denial of others from the
economic benefits of the land. It's as if the title holder of land
should take the credit for the activity around the land and even the
weather.
Henry George gave a succinct solution to this problem - common property on land means its economic rent should remain common.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Decoupling land from improvements: evaluating 100% LVT
Mihali A. Felipe Abstract One of the main criticisms in the implementation of the land value tax (LVT) is in its evaluation. To demonstrate ...
-
Mihali A. Felipe Abstract One of the main criticisms in the implementation of the land value tax (LVT) is in its evaluation. To demonstrate ...
-
Dear Middle Class: I don't think you have thought about your ire for the 'poorest of the poor' too thoroughly. Let me enume...