When the US was getting close to landing a man on the moon, we discussed the matter with the rest of the world, and agreed that obviously, no one should own that.

The idea that being first to set foot on a parcel of land, or defend it militarily, should give you rights to exclude others from the use of that land is absurd. Since no one had lived on the moon before then, we were able to look at the issue with a fresh and objective set of eyes, and our decision reflected our modern shared values in the 1960s. Globally! It's still not a settled issue, but essentially everyone agreed that raising a flag doesn't make you deserving of exclusive rights to a plot of land.

So why do we persist in looking at land ownership on Earth in the eyes of the 1700s?

This isn't an academic discussion. Land ownership creates passive income. Why should those with capital be entitled to this income? They did nothing to deserve it. Yes, you pay for the land you own, but that's just following a succession of ownership that begun with nothing. No work was invested to create the land. Ownership is rights of exclusion granted arbitrarily as a historical artifact.

Over time, this practice is taking a larger toll on our collective well-being. The value of land increases over time. The premium due to shortage of land increases over time. The proceeds from these trends go to benefit those who own capital at the expense of those who pay rent, which raises every aspect of the price index.

Inequality is becoming a larger social issue. Land ownership worsens inequality. It is welfare for the rich.

A one-off sale of land to benefit the public coffers is not sufficient to compensate for its true value. Land is ancient and the need for it will not diminish into the future.

Defense of the practice has become more difficult, and this trend will worsen in the future. Suburban development patterns have eroded the value of land to the collective. It's difficult or illegal to walk on many of our roads. Hierarchical road patterns make every development an immovable obstacle that can only serve the people that live there. By design.

With future developments of drone and satellite persistent surveillance, these trends will take a turn for the ugly. All communities will become gated communities in effect. Freedom of movement will be further eroded.

It's time we face reality. The days of land ownership in its traditional form are numbered. It's time we recognize it for what it is - an archaic practice that will be listed among feudalism and indentured servitude.

I come from a libertarian perspective. Ownership is an important human right. Exclusive rights to the product's of one's labor should not be diminished, or even rights the product's of other people's labor, provided they were obtained through voluntary transactions. Land is not a product of labor.

Land use tenure is obviously important. We have over 1 billion people living in slums right now, and they all live under the terror of eviction. Their very existence illegal, and our outdated land-use laws were central to the creation of that situation. Our system of land ownership is an affront to their human rights.

We were all born on this planet, and we all have an equal right to it.

3/22/2014 12:12:15 PM

i think you are confusing the word "immoral" with "unfair" or "unequal"

so, there's that

3/22/2014 12:18:56 PM

I had considered rewording the title with "unfair".

Too weak. Life isn't fair. The consequences of the practice are too atrocious to only be unfair. Feudalism is unfair, but that's less important than its immorality.

3/22/2014 12:52:09 PM

What system do you propose to determine land use and by whom the land is used?

Until you have a solution to present your disagreement with the current system is pointless.

3/22/2014 1:11:02 PM

it's too late to implement this philosophy on Earth.

However, in space, it is a topic that is going to become a huge debate in the coming decades when private companies are able to land on celestial bodies... will effect mining, colonization, etc.

3/22/2014 1:22:04 PM

^^ Same argument goes for space. As far as I can tell, our government leadership is perfectly fine with stunting development if it means that the process is more equitable. This isn't speculation. That is the letter of the law. Exactly how we handle use of resources ultimately boils down to some UN committee.

I don't hear you objecting to that.

btw, Geolibertarianism is a proposal. It's detailed and clear. I guess I was being too subtle by dropping links. A proposal is articulated here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

The problem is far from intractable. Myself, I don't see anything wrong with what's outlined in that Wikipedia article. I believe there's clearly room for adjustment in the specifics. IMO a large number of proposals would work and would be superior to the existing system.

Quote :

"However, in space, it is a topic that is going to become a huge debate in the coming decades when private companies are able to land on celestial bodies... will effect mining, colonization, etc."

That's exactly it. It will become an issue for exactly this reason.

But it goes deeper than that. Private land ownership is having problems on Earth because of the growing slums. Right now you can ignore it because they're not on your doorstep. But in 20 years, the slums will have 2x as many people, 100x the economic influence, and million times the political influence. If space property disputes come onto the scene around the same time, then we're in for a ride.

[Edited on March 22, 2014 at 1:37 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2014 1:29:58 PM

I'm far more concerned with the fact that people occupy my mental space seemingly whenever they want, even when they aren't invited.

3/22/2014 1:33:36 PM

^ like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E
?

3/22/2014 1:37:06 PM

Quote :

"The premium due to shortage of land increases over time."

Does the rate at population growth causing the increase in premium outstrip the ability to feed that growing population? I'd think not. I'm not interested enough (yet) to do the math, but I'd imagine our ability to feed people dominates the need for the land versus the desire for people to just own it because they want to.

Quote :

"The proceeds from these trends go to benefit those who own capital at the expense of those who pay rent, which raises every aspect of the price index."

You're saying the mere ownership of the land causes inflation? Da fuk?

Quote :

" Land is ancient and the need for it will not diminish into the future."

So long as we have been building vertical it's need has always been diminishing and likely always will.

3/22/2014 1:43:45 PM

I assure you that no citizen actually owns land, but rather "leases it at the pleasure of the king". Stop paying the lease and see what happens.

3/22/2014 2:17:48 PM

Quote :

"Does the rate at population growth causing the increase in premium outstrip the ability to feed that growing population? I'd think not. I'm not interested enough (yet) to do the math, but I'd imagine our ability to feed people dominates the need for the land versus the desire for people to just own it because they want to."

When I know what mathematical statement you're making, I'll have something to say about it. The combined market valuation of all land grows at the same rate as population? Oh hell no.

Quote :

"You're saying the mere ownership of the land causes inflation? Da fuk?"

It raises prices relative to what they would otherwise be, not relative to last year, as you suggest. The definition of inflation you're using is a xx% increase from year-to-year. That's not what I was talking about. I mean that land rent/ownership is a component of CPI. Land cost is a component of prices. When you buy something at the register, land-related costs cause xx% of the price you pay. This is obviously true.

3/22/2014 7:40:41 PM

what a fucking stupid thread

3/22/2014 10:05:03 PM

Quote :

"What system do you propose to determine land use and by whom the land is used? Until you have a solution to present your disagreement with the current system is pointless."

The solution was presented in the manifesto about 150 years ago.

Quote :

". Land ownership creates passive income. Why should those with capital be entitled to this income? They did nothing to deserve it. Yes, you pay for the land you own, but that's just following a succession of ownership that begun with nothing. No work was invested to create the land. Ownership is rights of exclusion granted arbitrarily as a historical artifact."

Welcome to capitalism. This is why it doesn't work.

Quote :

"it's too late to implement this philosophy on Earth. "

it will happen. i'm sure people thought at one point it was too late not to have slavery. Human intelligence will continue to increase and eventually we'll realise, hopefully before the ponzi scheme crashes our global society.

Quote :

"Does the rate at population growth causing the increase in premium outstrip the ability to feed that growing population? I'd think not. I'm not interested enough (yet) to do the math, but I'd imagine our ability to feed people dominates the need for the land versus the desire for people to just own it because they want to."

we use way too much land anyway and are destroying the planet. everyone could live in a city the size of california and still have plenty of room.

[Edited on March 22, 2014 at 10:14 PM. Reason : ^people like theduke have no foresight to see the current system doesn't work at all.]

3/22/2014 10:13:26 PM

Quote :

"what a fucking stupid thread"

property on earth, yes, but there is a huge debate coming on celestial property and mineral rights.

3/23/2014 12:00:54 AM

How can anyone debate the nature of ownership of celestial bodies with a straight face, while saying that our ownership system on Earth is just fine?

That's the reason people like theDuke866 are a walking contradiction.

You can't have the debate ^ without a subsequent attack on Earth's property rights. That's my prediction of what will happen.

3/23/2014 8:42:24 AM

the people who already own land won't be happy about giving it up. and therefore there will not be significant change here.

3/23/2014 11:51:54 AM

All you have to do is end inheritance. Once people die, their land goes into common ownership. In 80 years, theres no more private land.

3/23/2014 12:14:06 PM

^no

3/23/2014 3:24:35 PM

Are we talking about personal property? Or are we talking Putin taking more land property?

Because if we're talking about personal property, as someone already said. The individual doesn't own shit. As soon as they get behind on their tax bill, they find out how much land they really "own."

3/23/2014 5:49:07 PM

Property tax diminishes the value of real estate. There exists a property tax rate which would drive the market price of a piece of land to zero. Existing property taxes don't fully reflect the concepts of Geo-libertarianism in several ways. For one, I believe that the tax is assessed on the value of structures as well as the land. The same academic argument against land ownership does not similarly apply to ownership of structures. They are a product of labor. Second, property tax isn't absolute. A property may be owned by a bank, not in use, and relieved of the burden of property tax. Third, even with property tax factored in, market value of almost all land is greater than zero.

Quote :

"Are we talking about personal property? Or are we talking Putin taking more land property?"

...what? No, this is not about Ukraine.

3/23/2014 6:40:44 PM

that wiki article seems really vague

you rent the land forever
the more the acreage, the more you pay

thus,
the rich can rent more land
the poor still don't have money to rent
the super poor will still hang around big cities for shelter and handouts

3/23/2014 7:34:41 PM

Quote :

"Land is not a product of labor."

Is anything just a product of labor? A house? That's just a collection of wood you didn't make. A tree that you planted? That's just the product of a seed you didn't make. Everything from a computer program to a standup comedy act wouldn't exist without a bunch of other stuff that you got because it already existed before humans were on the planet.

3/23/2014 8:18:16 PM

As soon as you come up with some governing body to make sure this land is divided out as it should, then that governing body will eventually assume some type of ownership.

I don't see how this is a libertarian idea at all. Sounds like a nod to globalism.

3/23/2014 8:38:41 PM

Interesting theory, however the practical application of this will be to jack up property tax rates sky high, which will dick over the middle class even more.

3/23/2014 9:13:13 PM

Quote :

"the poor still don't have money to rent the super poor will still hang around big cities for shelter and handouts"

The poor pay rent. Rent has two cost-components for our purposes:
- Land
- Structures and improvements

Currently, a price roughly equal to the amortized value of both of these are paid to owners. There are also bills like water and electricity, but these are paid to different people. The proposal of Geo-libertarianism is that the premium for land goes to government entirely. In that sense, the component of rent that goes to the amortization of land has a 100% tax rate. In other words, government owns the land. (EDIT: begin tangent) Some libertarian proposals on this subject suggest that the rent is paid to all citizens equally as a tax-rebate. But I agree that's pedantic. Functionally, it's somewhat indistinguishable since government has the ability to set taxing and spending priorities anyway. It's fungible, and I don't believe someone who says it can be made non-fungible. (end tangent)

Quote :

" Everything from a computer program to a standup comedy act wouldn't exist without a bunch of other stuff that you got because it already existed before humans were on the planet."

...and you're including intellectual property in this basket? You do have a point, but it meanders there. IP is abstract in nature. The cost of storing data is excluded from the valuation in the form of patents or trademarks, for example. In terms of the purely abstract, patents are still vulnerable by the social-justice logic I've employed. BUT, this is only true in the sense that a patented invention would otherwise be naturally re-discovered by someone else. That depends on the size of the abstract space of potential patentable concepts. If there are 1,000,000 things that could feasibly be patented from human-kind's current knowledge base, and 1,000 patents are granted, then it follows that some fraction of the patent claim is naked rentiership, but it is comparatively small. The same is not true for land.

Materials are different.

Energy is very very different. In fact, I understand the argument you're making, and this is really where you should be making it. Materials can be recycled, and most elements have essentially zero market-based scarcity premium. Chemical forms, including natural ores do. Naturally, mining operations default to the same debate that determines the use of land. However, mineral energy resources are inherently used to the exclusion of others due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It could be argued that a carbon tax is more natural than a land tax. But I was never proposing a land tax, only collective ownership. So it's not a trivial comparison.

Regarding ^, land use rights obviously have to be allocated based on market principles. The word "land" already just refers to land use rights. That doesn't fully determine the system. It's just a requirement, and one that is not difficult to satisfy.

[Edited on March 23, 2014 at 9:27 PM. Reason : ]

3/23/2014 9:24:24 PM

what a fucking stupid thread.

3/23/2014 9:50:58 PM

3/23/2014 9:55:34 PM

1) look who created it

2) look who took it seriously

3/23/2014 10:02:36 PM

The Scandinavian countries have something called freedom to roam, which I've always appreciated when visiting. Still private property, but allows you to "trespass" without fear of a drunk redneck saying, "geet awf muh land"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

3/24/2014 11:00:32 AM

So what you're saying is, is that you want the government to own all the land?

Cause that's what will happen.

3/24/2014 12:31:40 PM

^

Quote :

"Thus, geolibertarians recognize a right to secure possession of land (land tenure), on the condition that the full rental value be paid to the community."

3/24/2014 12:48:28 PM

But if people can collectively figure out everything else without government in Libertarian Land, why would property rights/access/use be any different?

3/24/2014 12:49:35 PM

Nothing about the idea entails government making decisions about land.

The point is to change who is entitled to land rents.

3/24/2014 12:53:58 PM

how do you pay the community?

3/24/2014 1:14:02 PM

pay the government.

3/24/2014 1:19:24 PM

Quite right. But, what did the government do to deserve that rent? At least a land owner bothered to stand there once. The state legislature has never seen nor heard of the land. So why do you think they deserve a check in the mail for it?

Government must be paid for somehow. But there are bad outcomes whenever a tax is too high on anything, including land. It is similarly unfair. I see no reason why land intensive industries such as farming or resource industries such as mining should be made to pay more for society than, say, banking or manufacturing.

3/24/2014 1:29:06 PM

Quote :

"At least a land owner bothered to stand there once."

I believe this is untrue. At least it isn't required to be true.

Quote :

"I see no reason why land intensive industries such as farming or resource industries such as mining should be made to pay more for society than, say, banking or manufacturing."

But the proposal wouldn't change their costs of doing business, if it could be implemented the way it is proposed. It's quite possible that it can't be. Many "greens" would prefer the strike-price to lay above what the natural land rent market value would be on its own. This means that some amount of land would remain unused. Thus, making the greens happy. However, they try to do the same thing now, so I find it unclear whether this adds anything to the discussion.

Another practical concern is whether government would be too prudent or not prudent enough in overseeing the extraction industries that they've granted leases to. But again, I can't see how this is different from the status quo.

[Edited on March 24, 2014 at 1:39 PM. Reason : ]

3/24/2014 1:38:35 PM

How is it not different? You want to scrap all other forms of taxation and somehow get the government to extract 50% of GDP through property taxes alone. This is obviously impossible, but the attempt would certainly have a result other than "status quo", hopefully short of economic collapse and revolution, of course.

3/24/2014 1:48:22 PM

Quote :

"You want to scrap all other forms of taxation"

no

Quote :

"somehow get the government to extract 50% of GDP through property taxes alone"

no

The proposal is that land property taxes are:
a) set by market bids for the land and
b) high enough that the market value for the lease is $0

These two points may even be redundant. The lease is written and issued with no exchange of money, so the market value of the land is obviously $0 on issuance. Money is only exchanged as rent according to the terms. If economic conditions make this arrangement unfavorable to the lease-holder, he/she hands it back to the government and says "I'm out".

There could be a secondary market, as long as the leases aren't indefinite. This would be required (to some extent) for protection of value in the form of land improvements. Exactly how the improvements are factored in upon the expiration of the lease is my own biggest question. Alternatively, the leases could be based on a rolling valuation of land rent value in an area, such that there is no secondary market.

[Edited on March 24, 2014 at 2:04 PM. Reason : ]

3/24/2014 2:03:19 PM

And how is that not different from the status quo? The dead-weight loss from rendering it impossible for people to plan economic activity in the long term would be devastating. Not to mention the cruelty of throwing people and businesses out in the street because someone richer than they doesn't like them and bid a bunch for their land. Don't like your neighbors? Bid a bunch for their land. Once they've evicted from it, stop paying the rent and let the government take it back. Rinse/repeat.

3/24/2014 2:16:54 PM

Status quo: you buy a plot of land and pay a builder.

In this system, you could (don't have to) pay a builder and put some money into the stock market. The real returns from the stock market are used to pay the land rent.

Securitization so that you always have the proceeds necessary to pay the land rent would be necessary. This could either be left to the free market to develop financial products to do this, or you could tweak the contract terms so that people will have rights to the value of land improvements. Because land improvements are products of labor, people should have indefinite ownership rights. I don't know if this is embodied within existing geo-libertarianism proposals, but it's what I think.

The rules for assessing market value are more difficult to get right. This is true.

3/24/2014 2:35:18 PM

Quote :

"and you're including intellectual property in this basket?"

No, it's in the other basket, it falls under the "always been there" category like land or seeds. This property exists before you discover it, and just because you were the first person to put a flag on it should give you no claim worthy to exclude others.

Quote :

"BUT, this is only true in the sense that a patented invention would otherwise be naturally re-discovered by someone else. That depends on the size of the abstract space of potential patentable concepts."

There are billions of grains of dirt in the land you "can't own". Just because you can't stand on the exact same specs of dirt doesn't mean they don't exist. Ideas aren't labor, they are property, and like all property, they've been around in some form or another since before you were born. They might not have been polished, they might not have been "claimed", but they still existed in the very least as a possibility, just like the seed is to the tree.

Quote :

"Energy is very very different."

No it's not, it's the same as any other property, you can't make it, you can only change it from one form to another.

3/26/2014 10:28:20 AM

Just so I'm clear, this system basically says everybody should rent from "the community," and because apparently it is opposite day, we're calling it a libertarian idea. Yes?

We still get to pay for land, like we do now, but in the end we don't get any actual land.

Lax or nonexistent recognition of land ownership has done wonders for Benin, BTW. It's part of the reason so many of the structures are basically shacks and death traps. Why bother improving on land that isn't yours?

3/26/2014 11:06:07 AM

Quote :

"There are billions of grains of dirt in the land you "can't own". Just because you can't stand on the exact same specs of dirt doesn't mean they don't exist."

Governance should err on the side of liberty.

If I can not give an articulable reason that you should be barred from use of that grain of sand, then I should have no legal grounds to stop you from using it. Same goes for the resources of the moon. Water-ice at the moon's poles has no natural utility to any ecosystem, and it has no competing industrial use.

There is a difficult and meaningful question of how we allocate rights to resources like the lunar water-ice once the uses are prolific and there is real physical scarcity.

Quote :

"No it's not, it's the same as any other property, you can't make it, you can only change it from one form to another."

You can only change energy to a higher-quality state by using more energy. But we're speaking of energy as a commodity, so that detail is irrelevant.

3/26/2014 11:09:33 AM

Quote :

"Governance should err on the side of liberty. If I can not give an articulable reason that you should be barred from use of that grain of sand, then I should have no legal grounds to stop you from using it. Same goes for the resources of the moon. Water-ice at the moon's poles has no natural utility to any ecosystem, and it has no competing industrial use."

Then why not on intellectual property?

3/31/2014 10:39:40 PM

what is "liberty" when it comes to intellectual property?

Game of Threes creator spent 14 months creating their game, planning their algorithm, etc., then 2048 comes along and makes an easier rip off version, undermining their work and effort:
http://asherv.com/threes/threemails/#letter

I can see arguments for both sides, but i lean slightly towards the maker of Threes being able to claim infringement.

3/31/2014 11:28:44 PM

Quote :

"Game of Threes creator spent 14 months creating their game, planning their algorithm, etc., then 2048 comes along and makes an easier rip off version, undermining their work and effort:"

This was unfortunate wording for your point. A clone, by definition, doesn't copy the code. All the work that goes into writing the countless lines of code for the algorithm and building the game in general is performed anew.

Your concern is very specific to qualitative, user-directed, rules of the game. That is, the objective, the point system, however the cards are drawn, and so on.

I agree that some protections should exist. However, the "14 months" argument is just flat-out mistaken. The clone was developed in short order, but it could have involved dramatically more man-hours than the original. Then there's the fact that the tweaks were designed specifically to make the clone non-infringing. No amount of laws will ever change that, because the people who clone will adapt by changing more things to get their game in compliance. Some number of clones on the borderline of legality should be presumed to exist in any legal system.

4/1/2014 8:11:45 AM

Quote :

"Game of Threes creator spent 14 months creating their game, planning their algorithm, etc., then 2048 comes along and makes an easier rip off version, undermining their work and effort:"

I don't care how long they took to make it. That's like Kanye West complaining how his video didn't win an award despite spending a million dollars. You can't get mad at someone else for doing something better.

When you look at 2048, there's nothing proprietary. Adding numbers? Sliding blocks across the screen? I think 2048 is a better product for most people, it might be simple, it might be easy, and it might be easily forgotten, but those are qualities I like in a game. I don't want games that "change my life" or that I have to devote hours learning and playing, and I don't think most people do, that's why games like 2048 and Flappy Bird have become so successful.

It sounds like instead of spending 14 months on crap most people don't care about, they should have made 2048 in 2 weeks.

4/2/2014 10:26:28 AM

So how is that different than if someone took a beatles song, changed a few of the segments, then resold it as their own? Or took a famous novel, changed the ending, then resold it as there? It's not really "creativity" or genius or work, it's just ripping off someone else's handwork and talent.

Without any type of intellectual property protection, creativity does suffer. Remember, the system was designed so that the massive corporations back in the days wouldn't just take idea from the small guy and mass market them and reap all the profits. No IP protection is worse than too much really.

4/2/2014 11:04:18 AM

you wouldn't even have to change it, just reprint it and sell it yourself

4/2/2014 12:00:10 PM