The hidden ugliness of Capitalism

I understand and agree with what you are saying. The solution to this problem is to have government – acting on behalf of the citizens – collect all land rent via taxation, then return that collected rent equally back to the citizens of the country in the form of a citizens dividend. The individual citizen can then spend that citizens dividend to pay the taxes on land, giving him secure, exclusive rights to an equal share of nature.

Under the current U.S. population, the individuals citizens dividend would pay the taxes on about 7 acres of average quality land; a family of four could use the dividend to pay for 28 acres of average quality land. This family can then build a home, raise chickens, pigs, gardens, open a mechanics shop, etc. on that 28 acres of land, which is their equal share of nature.

By securing equal rights to land, the government can give the worker bargaining power; if employers are not offering more than he can earn self-employed on his share of land (7 average quality acres per household member) , he can tell those employers to take their job offers elsewhere.

This is something I think you have never understood about my proposal; I want government to take the land through taxation, so it can be divided equally between the citizens, with each citizen getting an equal share of the value that nature contributes. With the idea being, that if government secures equal rights to land, the worker has the option of self-employment, working on his equal share of the land, and that gives him bargaining power in wage negotiations.

 

There are fundamental flaws with the proposal. First of all it's based upon the false foundation that "Two Wrongs Make A Right" and that's simply not true. Second is the false belief that a person has a "right to property" when they've expended no physical labor to earn that right which violates the "Natural Right of Property" of the common. Next would be the false belief that all land based upon area is equal when it's not. The list of flaws is really quite extensive so I won't go on but there are more equitable means of resolving the problem of "forced commerce" where the natural right of property are not violated that I've addressed.

For example mandatory minimum compensation packages under the law don't violate anyone's rights. While the "employee" is forced to work the "employer" is not forced to hire workers so the employer's actions are purely voluntary while the workers actions are not. That's only a short term fix though because Artifical Intelligence and Technology (AI&T) is making human labor obsolete and our economic system and the Right of Property is based upon human labor. I don't have a viable solution to the problem that AI&T represents down the road.

 

There are no flaws in my proposal … the only flaws are in your thinking. The general ideas contained in my proposal are, or have been, supported by the most intelligent people to ever live upon this earth.

http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates

The quote directly above, highlights the fundamental flaw of your illogical thinking. The fact is, LABOR DOES NOT CREATE LAND, THEREFORE, LABOR CANNOT "EARN" LAND.

FACTS:

LAND IS A FREE GIFT OF NATURE.

THERE ARE NO “COSTS OF PRODUCTION” ASSOCIATED WITH LAND.

LAND IS NOT A PRODUCT OF LABOR.

LAND EXISTED BEFORE LABOR, SO HOW IN THE WORLD CAN LABOR EARN LAND???

[capitalization for added emphasis]

The fact is, it is impossible for labor to create land, therefore, it is impossible for labor earn property in land. Your fantasies, and supporting fallacies to the contrary, are what keep you from seeing the truth, and that truth is: "The fruits of the earth are a common heritage of all, to which each man has equal right." – Voltaire

This is not a false belief of mine. That is why I took the effort to continually specify “of average quality land” throughout my post. If you spend your citizens dividend on the best land you will certainly get very little land "area" for it, but if you spend your dividend on poor quality land, you will get much more area than the 7 acres of average quality land that I spoke of in previous posts. So, this is not a flaw in my reasoning, it is a flaw with your understanding.

Those laws also don't do anything to help workers keep more of what they produce. Go ahead and raise the minimum wage, landlords will simply raise their rents. In New York City, the wages are already well above the minimum wage, but the workers are still poor, because the landlord just demand more rent there. Where wages are higher, the workers are just as poor, but the landlords are much richer … raising the minimum wage just allows landlords to charge more rent … which makes it a stupid idea, from the workers perspective.

 

*sigh*

MOD EDIT - Rule 2

You are referring intrinsic value theory...any first year accounting major knows this. Labor has no intrinsic vale, so your point is moot (LVT is was rendered a joke of a theory years ago by most reputable economist even though a few have attempted to revitalize it recently).

And no, ownership isn't strictly a legal concept- it predates legal systems. And as I stated in the post regarding concepts such as IP, the discussion is not regarding legal constructs, because like ownership theft is not strictly a legal concept either.

MOD EDIT - Rule 2

 

You still seem to be confusing 1) how much a person values a thing with 2) one's knowledge of a things characteristics and the uses to which it can be put.

For example, we know that a candy bar can be used to alleviate hunger and satisfy one's sweet tooth (objective fact), but you don't know which I value more, a candy bar or one dollar (subjective value).

 

I want to return to this statement of yours, because it contains a major, obvious flaw of logical reasoning:

Your statement above implies that people have no right to work on land which they have not yet used, yet the only way to “earn” [sic] that right, is to work on that land, which they have not yet used, AND THEREFORE HAVE NO RIGHT TO USE. Do you see the fallacy in that?

Your reasoning goes like this:

1) Here is some land I would like to use.

2) Yet, I cannot use this land, because I have not earned that right, yet.

3) I need to plant something or build something on this land in order to “earn” the right to use it.

4) But, again, I cannot plant or build on this land, yet, because that would be using it, and I have not earned that right, yet.

In other words, a strict adherence to your belief system, would prevent anyone from ever using the earth. You are advocating a system where using the earth becomes a prerequisite for the right to use the earth, which makes it impossible for anyone to use the earth. I feel like I am going in circles just thinking about it.

 

I think you're conflating the general right to own property with the ownership of a particular piece of property. I contend that each of us has a general right to own property, but each of us only has ownership of specific properties. You equivocate back and forth between the two meanings, making your argument difficult to follow.

If someone has sold or given me something, then it ought to be my property. That fact that I own a particular thing in no way diminishes other people's right to property. They simply don't have a right to my property. They have a right to their own property.

 

It is obvious that you've never read or attempted to understand that natural right of property. I would highly recommend studying John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5, that provides the arguments for the natural right of property (which is juxtaposed to the granting of title to property that our statutory laws of property are based upon).

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm

There's nothing contradictory because the person does not need to hold "title" to the land in order to use it so long as the caveat imposed by Locke that "enough, and as good" remains for the "common" that shares ownership of all the land and natural resources. Nothing prevents the person from tilling the soil or erecting a home on the land which, through their labor, establishes their natural right to use the land. As soon as they "break ground" they've established their individual "natural right of property" to the use of the land.

The establishment of the "natural right of property" is a concurrent process established by the expenditure of labor and not a sequential process where "title" must be granted first.

Of course, as Locke also points out they must also maintain their "natural right of property" by labor. If they stop expending their labor then they lose their natural right of property to the use of the land.

Actually studying Locke opened my eyes but many don't want to understand Locke because they benefit financially based upon our statutory laws of property based upon "title" that was established under the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. It was the financial benefit of "title" for the wealthy that was behind the fact that our statutory laws of property based upon "title" were never repealed and replaced by laws reflecting the "natural right of property" when America was founded. The wealthy controlled our government and would have potentially suffered if we rejected statutory ownership by "title" and replaced our laws of property to reflect the "natural right of property" that John Locke advocated.

 

Unfettered capitalism is just as ugly as unfettered socialism. A healthy society and government has an appropriate measure of both systems.

 

Actually you confuse "Title of Ownership" that is transferrable with the "Natural Right of Property" which is not transferrable.

Let me provide an anecdotal example to demonstrate the difference.

In the 1980's my father designed and built a wonderful home on a small parcel of land where he lived and maintained the home and land for the rest of his life. He also had "title" to the land and home along with his "natural right of property" to the land and home established and maintained by his labor. When he died I was given the "title" to the land and home but I had not established a "natural right of property" to it until I moved into the home and began to maintain the home and land. His "natural right of property" was not transferrable and I had to establish my own "natural right of property" to the home and land.

There can be a conflict between ownership established by "title" with the "natural right of property" established by labor. I could have retained title to my father's home and the land it was on without ever establishing a natural right of property to the land and home. In that case I would have been violating the "natural right of property" of others that could have used the home and land and established their "natural right of property" to it based upon their labor.

The "title" standing alone represents a violation of the natural right of property that can only be established and maintained by the individual through their labor.

 

This is an excellent point that I'm addressing in a chapter of a book I'm writing that will be titled, REFLECTIONS - The Hippie Era 1965-1975" that I was personally involved in. Generally speaking, without academic knowledge, the "hippies" established a economic system that was a mixture of capitalism and socialism that embraced the attributes of both while seeking to eliminate the negative aspects of each. Only since then I have come to understand that the underlying foundation was the "Natural Right of Property" as addressed by John Locke although most of us had little knowledge of John Locke at the time.

It was the intuitive adoption of an economic ideology based upon what's right as opposed to the intellectual arguments that Locke put forward that he based upon the intuitive nature of what's right. It's very much like Jefferson that addressed the fact that "We hold these truths to be self-evident" because the arguments are based upon intuition where people really do know what's right and wrong.

At the time we might not have been able to provide the logical and compelling arguments as to why the mixture of capitalism and socialism was "right" but we knew that it was.

 

I realize you rely heavily on Locke for your theories, but you are misrepresenting Locke's position. Locke argued that one could homestead unowned resources by mixing one's labor with the resource. Once a thing becomes owned in such a fashion, it remains owned and the owner may dispose of it as he wishes.

Your father owned the home, and he gave it to you. You are now the owner. You don't need to establish ownership again. It has already been established. Your position that ownership must be maintained by continuous labor is an incorrect representation of Locke's position.

 

There is only one part of John Locke's writings that a person need read, and that is the part which says that once land becomes scarce (commanding rent) that the whole Lockean philosophy of property is rendered OBSOLETE.

Here is the relevant part:

“Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself.” — Second Treatise of Government, Chapter V, paragraph 33

So, in other words, according to Locke's own writings, we can no longer use the system which he advocated, because it was written for a time when land scarcity did not exist, and since that condition no longer exists, we MUST discard his philosophy. As land scarcity took hold and land began commanding rent, John Locke's philosophy must be replaced with Henry George's philosophy, which was written with land scarcity, and a justifiable distribution of land rent, firmly in mind.

According to John Locke, you are being unjust in your actions of land appropriation, because there is no longer “enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use” – which puts your appropriation of your fathers land squarely at odds with Locke's philosophy.

 

There is no more unowned land left to appropriate. If you want some, you need to buy it from some current owner. Check with a local realtor.

 

There is one major problem with this line of thought … it assumes that land ownership is grounded in the first use of the land. But as you know very well, there is not a single title to land the world over which can be traced to the first user. So, right or wrong, the first user philosophy is irrelevant to any modern day discussion of land rights.

 

Possibly. But you'd still have to agree that the current owner of a thing has the best legal claim to that thing. Can you find someone with a better claim to the piece of land you own than you?

 

There never was … at least not the United States. Conquest and purchase placed all land under the possession of the U.S. government, and all private use of this land, since that time, has occurred under conditions set by that government. Every current “owner” of land agreed to these conditions when they purchased the land. One of those conditions is that the land user pay rent to the state. All I want is to increase that rent so it can cover all the costs associated with the justifiable operations of government.

I don't have a problem with that. I just want the land VALUE taxes to be increased, so I am not forced to pay the current landowner for what the government and community are actually providing.

 

Yes, I know you want taxes increased, but tax policy is a different issue from [MENTION=6356]Shiva_TD[/MENTION]'s confusion between ownership of a particular piece of property and the concept of property rights in general. Owning a particular piece of property does not diminish other people's property rights. Nor is it necessary to continually expend labor in order to maintain ownership. That is a misrepresentation of Locke's position.

 

This post exemplifies the very problem that I address.

Yes, by conquest and purchase the government secured title (statutory ownership) of the land based upon the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings which is exactly what John Locke argued against in establishing the "Natural Right of Property" in Chapter 5 of the Second Treatise of Government. Locke's arguments that ownership based upon the laws of nature are compelling where it can only be established by the physical labor of the person which the person owns exclusively. The government, be it a king or a democracy, is a political entity that does not expend individual labor and has no right of property. By conquest or purchase the government is limited to exerting political authority over the territory and does not acquire a "right of property" to it that it can, in turn, grant by title to individuals.

The acquisition of land through conquest or purchase by the government under statutory laws of ownership is a fundamental violation of the "natural right of property" of the people. When the government established it's ownership by "title" to the land it was a violation of our natural/inalienable rights and that violation is not lessened by the government then granting title to the land and/or natural resources to individuals that are not required to establish their individual right of property through their individual labor. It merely passes the violation of the natural right of property from the hands of one to the hands of another.

The argument that by the purchase of the land the individual voluntarily consents to the conditions of government title over the land is false because there is no alternative. The person is forced to purchase the land or not own any land at all because they cannot establish a "natural right of property" to it exclusively through their labor.

The arguments put forward by Henry George for "rent" (property tax) to fund government are based upon the Divine Right of Kings which is juxtaposed to the "natural right of property" and are fundamentally flawed. A person can own land either by title or by title along with establishing their natural right of property by labor to the land but not have any means of paying the tax. The ability to pay tax is based upon commerce but the individual is forced to engage in commerce and it is not voluntary (as was previously noted). If the rent (tax) is not paid the land is forefeit to back to the government. If it's just based upon "title" then the person's natural/inalienable rights are not violated but in cases where the natural right of property has also been established by labor then it is a violation of the natural/inalienable rights of the person.

This is where Henry George's arguments fail because, as noted, it's based upon the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings and is not based upon the "natural right of property" as established by Locke. When we read Locke's arguments the natural right of property is extremely limited because it's based upon the labor of the individual and the individual is pragmatically limited to how much labor they can personally expend to secure a natural right of property to the use of land and/or the natural resources.

This is why economic arguments made by Henry George, Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, and Austrian School of Economics fail. They're all based upon "statutory ownership of property established by title" under the Divine Right of Kings as opposed to the "natural right of property" as established by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5.

Based upon the "natural right of property" the violations of the natural/inalienable rights of property would not be violated. A person couldn't own too much land or natural resources because they're inherently limited by how much labor they can personally expend. The natural/inalienable rights of property are only violated based upon statutory ownership granted by title that existed under the Divine Right of Kings.

We can understand the reasons many address the problems associated with "statutory title" because the problems all relate to the violations of the natural/inalienable rights of the person but their solutions are always based upon additional violations of the natural right of property. Instead of addressing the violations of the right of property created based upon statutory ownership by title by additional violations it would be far better to prevent the initial violations of the natural/inalienable right of property to begin with and that requires a major change in our property laws.

By way of analogy murder is the violation of the right to life but capital punishment is also the same violation of the right to life. Instead of capital punishment it would be far better to prevent the murder in the first place. If the murder cannot be prevented then the person responsible can be prevented from committing additional murders by incarceration which is a limitation imposed on the Freedom to Exercise the Right of Liberty but does not violate the actual Right of Liberty as it only imposes a limitation upon the ability of the person to exercise that right. They are not allowed to move freely in society where they can commit another murder. It is a pragmatic preventative measure specifically designed to not violate a natural/inalienable Right of Liberty.

The old saying goes, "An ounce of preventions is worth a pound of cure" and that applies to our Rights of Property that were/are violated based upon the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings where the government acquires and then grants title to the land and natural resources. We could have that prevention if we overhauled our laws of property to reflect the Natural/Inalienable Right of Property.

 

If the person does not establish and maintain a Natural Right of Property based upon their personal labor related the land and/or natural resources then it represents the theft of the land/natural resources from the People and all of our Natural Property Rights are violated. The government does not have a "right of property" and cannot grant title to land and/or natural resources because it never had any property rights to either. The granting of title to land/natural resources it doesn't own by goverment is theft and the right of property cannot be established by theft.

Ownership can only be established and maintained by the personal labor of the individual and even then only if "enough, and as good" remains for all others in society (John Locke).

The problem is that few want to address these facts when it comes to the natural/inalienable right of property. They've been so indoctrinated into accepting the violations of the natural/inlienable right of property that they fear they will lose something if we change our laws of property to protect the natural/inalienable right of property. Greed is taking precedent over reason.

 

This is actually false because Locke's arguments for the acquisition of land by labor are based upon "unused" land and not "unowned" land. As Locke addresses if a person does not continuously labor on the land, thereby allowing it to return to a state of nature, then the right of property to the land is forfeit and returns to the common for other's to claim through their labor.

Title establishes "ownership" while Labor establishes the "right of property" for the person and the "right" is non-transferrable.

I had "title" to the home my father built because the title was transferrable but I did not have a "right of property" to it until I expended my personal labor on the home and the land. The "Right of Property" is not transferrable which is something many fail to understand. This does not imply that the goods produced by labor are not transferrable but the "Right to Property" related to them is dependent upon use. If a person doesn't "use it" they "lose it" based upon the principle of abandonment. This is true for both commodities and the right to use the land.

We can also note that Locke imposes strict limitation upon how much a person can possess based upon their natural right of property repeatedly in Chapter 5.

The labor of the person as well as a limitation upon how much they could actually use imposed a pragmatic limit upon the natural/inalienable right of property and to take more than that was both useless and dishonest because it violated the natural/inalienable right of property of the "common" (i.e. all people). As Locke accurately notes there's no room for controversy when we look at the wealth accumulation by many individuals. It was impossible for those like the Koch brothers, the Walton family, or Bill Gates to acquire the wealth they possess through their own labor and they have far more than they could ever possibly use in their lifetime and perhaps in 1,000 lifetimes.

It's not like this is something that's hidden from us because it's so obvious that even the fool knows they have far more than the natural/inalienable right of property entitles them to and their possession of "far too much" violates the natural/inalienable right of property held by the "common" in our society. There is no controversy related to the over-accumulation of wealth that's both "useless" and "dishonest" because it's obvious to all.

 

They are not facts. They are opinion.

So you are of the opinion that millions of homeowners in the US don't actually legitimately own their homes? If so, who has a better claim to their homes than they do?

 

Some might take this statement out of context to imply that it's "wealth envy" when in fact it's not. By way of example I'll use Bill Gates.

Bill Gates built a $500 million home on Lake Washington and it's a palatial mansion and estate. He may, for all I know, own his own Lear Jet and drive a million dollar Dusenberg to get around in. I don't envy this at all because he's using these for his "comfort" and is entitled do them. At the sametime Bill Gates also seems to understand that he has far more wealth than he has a natural right of property to because he's given away about $40 billion of his wealth to others through charity. It is the wealth beyond what's required for Bill Gates to live the most expensive and luxurious lifestyle imaginable that doesn't rightfully belong to him.

It's not the wealth he's using for his support and comfort (as luxurious as it is) but instead the wealth in excess of this amount that he doesn't have a natural/inalienable right of property to.

 

You continue to confuse the right to own property with the ownership of a particular piece of property. You and I both have a right to own property. However, we actually own different pieces of property.

Also, Locke is talking about how people might come to acquire unowned resources. Since your father's home was not unowned, Locke's homesteading principle does not apply in this case.

If you don't think the millions of homeowners in the US rightfully own their homes, then who do you think does rightfully own them?

 

What we have in the Western world is corporatism, not capitalism. If we had a capitalistic system there would be many more mom and pop stores, and small businesses; and companies would actually have to compete with each other in price, quality, and for the best employees. Now there is just the box stores who pay their employees minimum wage, sell cheap products made overseas, and sell products that need to be replaced on a regular basis. Corporatism rewards the most manipulative (those that sell the most cheap products), whereas capitalism rewards hard work, innovation, and quality. If it weren't for corporatism, our civilization would be far more advanced than it is right; but corporatism squelches competition, and without competition, there is no evolution.