One final excellent denial of reality from that thread
Jonathan Pearce: "I deny that the existence of property rights requires the existence of a state with a monopoly of law enforcement or application of violence. Property rights can pre-date a state, rather than the other way round."
My response: "That's simply not true on a historical level or a logical level. The Vikings imposed their 'state' and Anglo-Saxon land ownership was wiped out, then the Normans imposed their 'state' and Viking land ownership was wiped out. Had the Germans won WW2, ditto. Or look at East Germany under the USSR.
Without land registration and the force of the state to e.g. evict squatters and non-paying tenants, protect you from burglars & trespassers, restrict your neighbour from extending his property and thus devaluing yours etc, land rights are more or less worthless - see for example Zimbabwe where law and order has broken down.
Or closer to home, why is UK farmland worth 1% as much as urban land? It's because a farm is worth what it's worth because of what it can be used to produce. [And] it requires relatively little police presence, it requires very little in the way of things that make urban land valuable (it doesn't need street lighting, refuse collection, transport infrastructure, fire service etc).
[So with farmland there is a very good match between the amount of tax that should be paid on it, i.e. nothing as far as I am concerned, and the amount that third parties spend on it - see how it falls into place once you think about it!]
Robinson Crusoe may have declared his own republic on his island and declared himself owner of the whole island. But that right is only worth something provided he has the force to back it up. If he has enough weapons (legal or actual) to back it up and get people to pay him rent or to pay money for freeholds, then by definition, he is The State.
As to physical moveable property, however malevolent The State or your enemies, you can always hide them or take them with you to another country - a kilo of gold (well hidden/protected) has much the same value whether in Zimbabwe, North Korea or the UK.
I'm not sure how anybody can contend what you contend.
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Killer arguments against LVT, not. (7)
My latest blogpost: Killer arguments against LVT, not. (7)Tweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 23:08
Labels: KLN, Land Value Tax, Logic
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Erm, farmland is worth only 1% as much as urban land because it doesn't have Planning Permission for residential use.
Give the the PP, and suddently it's worth more or less the same as the urban land - more if it's clean (environmental-wise) and in or on the edge of a nice pretty village.
Correct. But it's all about supply and demand, if they liberalise planning laws a bit then existing houses all go down a bit and the farmland with PP goes up.
Post a Comment