4 ms·
> Nobody ever talks about this. I've always assumed that this is because those who think land is just another free market commodity (it isn't) don't realise th
by mattgibson 9y ago
> Nobody ever talks about this.
I've always assumed that this is because those who think land is just another free market commodity (it isn't) don't realise there's anything to talk about, so they keep quiet.
However, those that understand realise they can use land to bypass the free market and get a constant flow of free money through rent. They then routinely lie about it so they get to carry on.
My hope is that new technology such as the linked map of land ownership will lower the bar to learning how land works far enough that it becomes hard to lie about it effectively.
Land is a monopoly, but most people are not even aware that economists describe it as such, let alone knowing how the monopoly works. I think once that begins to change, we will see reform. More of an education issue than anything else.
- smiytyhtobf 9y ago"Land is a monopoly". What?
- eevilspock 9y agoRead up on Geolibertarian and Georgist takes on land as private property. Or check out Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian? http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
- smiytyhtobf 9y agoLand redistribution is a difficult idea to sell since it means the use of force to do it. And when you think that all lands, now legal, have been taken by force, or chance at some point in the past, how do we deal it? Think about it: Even your perfectly legal little house, was taken by force or chance at some point back in history.
- eevilspock 9y agoYou're bolstering my point. Thank you.
- gchadwick 9y agoSeems quite straight-forward. The concept of owning land is the concept of giving someone a total monopoly on the use of that land.
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoHardly. Others can still fly over it. Look at it. Zone-regulate the use of it. Enforce environmental regulations on it. Pursue criminals over it. The nation can assert hegemony over it. Ownership is a limited-use social contract. There's less you can do every day.
- smiytyhtobf 9y agoI like this definition: "There are two types of ethically invalid land titles: "feudalism," in which there is continuing aggression by titleholders of land against peasants engaged in transforming the soil; and land-engrossing, where arbitrary claims to virgin land are used to keep first-transformers out of that land. We may call both of these aggressions "land monopoly"—not in the sense that some one person or group owns all the land in society, but in the sense that arbitrary privileges to land ownership are asserted in both cases, clashing with the libertarian rule of non-ownership of land except by actual transformers, their heirs, and their assigns." — Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty
- weberc2 9y agoIsn't this more or less true of most kinds of property?
- mattgibson 9y agoNo. Other forms of property can a) be manufactured and b) be moved. Land is unique in that both are impossible. As result, each piece of land is unique because of what it's close to (not what it is, as with other forms of property). That means that if you want an alternative equivalent product from another supplier, it's impossible. All the other bits of land are in different locations, and you can't get a new bit from a factory. This means that if you want to a) live walking distance from your parents (free childcare, so your partner can work and you get double income) and b) be able to commute to your place of work, there are certain number of qualifying pieces of land and no more. If someone already owns them all, you have no other choice but to buy or rent one of those. No entrepreneur can undercut high land prices with a cheaper equivalent, therefore it's a monopoly.
- mattgibson 9y agoExactly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_monopoly
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- 0x27081990 9y ago>free money through rent What about the money that you spent buying/restoring/maintaining land instead of doing something else? There's also risks when renting your private property. What if they don't want to leave? You can't kick them out, you need to begin a trial and justice is very slow (it takes at least 2 years and as long as 10 years in Argentina and I've heard it's the same on most countries of the EU). And it's not like you'll get your money back (the losses of not renting that property while it was occupied plus judicial expenditures). I agree that there are people who own lots of land and properties, but it's their right because they used their money for it, instead of doing something else.
- posterboy 9y agoIs it, is land ownership a human right or derived from such? You can't just counter the claim with the opposite argument, which ammounts to claiming payment would settle the issue.