Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Law of Rent

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 8:03:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Imagine a new virgin continent. Imagine that there are two types of land on this continent. Very fertile land and moderately fertile land. For the sake of example, let us say that the very fertile land is twice as productive as the moderately fertile land.

One man owns all the very fertile land and there is a surplus of moderately fertile land which anyone may work and keep the fruits. What wages will he pay to those that decide to work for him on his land? And the answer, which should be obvious if you think about it, is only slightly more than what they would earn were they to work the moderately fertile land, even though the MPL is twice that were he to work the moderately fertile land.

The reason he pays slightly more than what they would earn were they to work their own land is that he wants to entice workers to work for him but there is n need to pay them more as it is the best offer they can get. The landlord simply pockets the surplus value of the worker's labor.

Is this analysis accurate? If so, is this not exploitation and injustice?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 8:18:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How did he acquire the very fertile land?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 8:19:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 8:03:28 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Imagine a new virgin continent. Imagine that there are two types of land on this continent. Very fertile land and moderately fertile land. For the sake of example, let us say that the very fertile land is twice as productive as the moderately fertile land.

One man owns all the very fertile land and there is a surplus of moderately fertile land which anyone may work and keep the fruits. What wages will he pay to those that decide to work for him on his land? And the answer, which should be obvious if you think about it, is only slightly more than what they would earn were they to work the moderately fertile land, even though the MPL is twice that were he to work the moderately fertile land.

The reason he pays slightly more than what they would earn were they to work their own land is that he wants to entice workers to work for him but there is n need to pay them more as it is the best offer they can get. The landlord simply pockets the surplus value of the worker's labor.

Is this analysis accurate? If so, is this not exploitation and injustice?

The workers had a free choice between working their own land or being paid to work his. They are not being forced to work his land, they choose to because it is their best option. The wage is fair, being better than a living wage and better than they could earn on their own. The situation is neither unjust nor exploitative.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 8:27:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If it is exploitation, it is exploitation of the land and not the worker. Some people are simply a LOT better developing resources and it is very likely for example: say man #1 is able to get 2 tomatoes for1 worker on the fertile field. Landowner 2 with the moderate field gets only 1 tomato per worker. It is highly likely man #1 is going to sell his tomatoes at a much lower price than man #2. Although man #2 suffers, each and every tomato consumer benefits from cheap tomatoes. The common American consumer benefits from cheap food prices that you will never see in socialist nations.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 9:01:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 8:03:28 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Imagine a new virgin continent. Imagine that there are two types of land on this continent. Very fertile land and moderately fertile land. For the sake of example, let us say that the very fertile land is twice as productive as the moderately fertile land.

One man owns all the very fertile land and there is a surplus of moderately fertile land which anyone may work and keep the fruits. What wages will he pay to those that decide to work for him on his land? And the answer, which should be obvious if you think about it, is only slightly more than what they would earn were they to work the moderately fertile land, even though the MPL is twice that were he to work the moderately fertile land.

The reason he pays slightly more than what they would earn were they to work their own land is that he wants to entice workers to work for him but there is n need to pay them more as it is the best offer they can get. The landlord simply pockets the surplus value of the worker's labor.

Is this analysis accurate? If so, is this not exploitation and injustice?

I'd say that it is not, since there is an abundance of land to work on, meaning that as an employee, you have two options.
a) work for the employer for wages only slightly higher than option b.
b) work on the other land for yourself.

If the two options were
a) work for the employer for wages only slightly higher than option b.
b) have no job and no income.

Then I would argue differently.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 9:28:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 8:18:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
How did he acquire the very fertile land?

How would you answer change depending on how he acquired the land?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 9:31:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 9:28:26 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/1/2011 8:18:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
How did he acquire the very fertile land?

How would you answer change depending on how he acquired the land?

I think he is leading on the idea that he either probably had to make a substantial investment to acquire the land, or that he had to be more industrious than all the other people competing for the new land.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 9:39:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 9:28:26 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/1/2011 8:18:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
How did he acquire the very fertile land?

How would you answer change depending on how he acquired the land?

That would obviously depend on what explanations you could give on how he acquired the land.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 10:18:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If he fairly acquired the land, it's not injustice. The land is his, and he has the right to use it as he wishes. His money is his and he has the right to pay workers as he wishes. This is a major criticism of capitalism in general, but practically most of these problems arise from state protectionism. How did this guy homestead all the best parts of half a continent without anyone else getting anything? Normally these situations arise not from the idea of private property itself but from state enforcement of ridiculous 'property laws' that actually steal land from its rightful owners.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 4:08:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 8:27:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If it is exploitation, it is exploitation of the land and not the worker. Some people are simply a LOT better developing resources and it is very likely for example: say man #1 is able to get 2 tomatoes for1 worker on the fertile field. Landowner 2 with the moderate field gets only 1 tomato per worker. It is highly likely man #1 is going to sell his tomatoes at a much lower price than man #2. Although man #2 suffers, each and every tomato consumer benefits from cheap tomatoes. The common American consumer benefits from cheap food prices that you will never see in socialist nations.

Moreover, man #2 profits from being able to buy tomatoes at a lower price than he would spend if he had to produce them himself.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 9:10:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 8:03:28 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Imagine a new virgin continent. Imagine that there are two types of land on this continent. Very fertile land and moderately fertile land. For the sake of example, let us say that the very fertile land is twice as productive as the moderately fertile land.

One man owns all the very fertile land and there is a surplus of moderately fertile land which anyone may work and keep the fruits. What wages will he pay to those that decide to work for him on his land? And the answer, which should be obvious if you think about it, is only slightly more than what they would earn were they to work the moderately fertile land, even though the MPL is twice that were he to work the moderately fertile land.

The reason he pays slightly more than what they would earn were they to work their own land is that he wants to entice workers to work for him but there is n need to pay them more as it is the best offer they can get. The landlord simply pockets the surplus value of the worker's labor.

Is this analysis accurate? If so, is this not exploitation and injustice?

I don't think the fact you're trying to demonstrate is particularly damning. There are a couple factors to consider:

1. Given the surplus of MFL, the workers there will be directly reaping the fruits of their labors, while, working on the VFL will only provide workers with money to buy their necessities (which introduces an middleman that can be cut out by simply working for oneself on the MFL).

2. However, given that the VFL is twice as productive as the MFL, it follows that one would have to put in twice as much effort (and, presumably, a greater margin of time) to achieve relatively the same final product on the MFL. On the VFL, however, one would have to work only half as hard, and for less time, to achieve a slightly greater reward (once you translate wages to real good or commodities). I'm not sure who you would purchase these goods from, but we will assume that the landlord is offering to sell them to you at a price that would afford a slightly larger quantity of goods than you would otherwise get on the MFL.

The only difference, then, is that, on the VFL, the landlord gets the final profit. If you're the worker, it doesn't really matter. On the MFL, the value is destroyed because you consume it. On the VFL, you exchange money for the same goods, whose value you again destroy through consumption. In either case, the value gets destroyed, and you're left at square one. I would say that the worker is therefore better off on the VFL, since he gets a higher quantity of goods for less work. The landlord isn't exploiting the worker just because he makes a profit.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 9:17:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 9:10:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The landlord isn't exploiting the worker just because he makes a profit.

But the landlord is taking almost half of the fruit of the worker's labor.

Would a more just solution not grant to the worker working the land his full product? Does the landlord not act in this scenario simply as a parasite?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 9:31:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 9:17:49 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/2/2011 9:10:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The landlord isn't exploiting the worker just because he makes a profit.

But the landlord is taking almost half of the fruit of the worker's labor.

As opposed to what? The worker gains less value for twice the effort + more time if he works for himself.

Would a more just solution not grant to the worker working the land his full product? Does the landlord not act in this scenario simply as a parasite?

First of all, "justice" isn't some high and noble concept that passes judgment on human relations. There is no "more just solution".

Second of all, granting workers their entire product runs into several problems:

1. Worker agreed to the arrangement.

2. Even though the landlord doesn't perform physical labor, that doesn't mean that he sits around and does nothing.

3. Land and labor don't have value on their own--their value only results from exchanges. It's incoherent to say that the landlord must offer the worker 100% labor value, because it's up to the landlord to determine the extent to which he values the worker's labor. If the landlord isn't going to gain any value from hiring the workers (i.e. isn't going to profit), he has no incentive to hire them, and may as well let the land sit there. The only reason he has an incentive to price their labor a certain way is because the alternative that the workers could turn to has its own value--and the only reason he has an incentive to hold the land, decide the purpose toward which it will be directed, and hire workers is because he expects to profit from its cultivation.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 9:57:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 9:28:26 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/1/2011 8:18:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
How did he acquire the very fertile land?

How would you answer change depending on how he acquired the land?

If he said "This land is mine just because I said so," he's in the wrong. If he was planting all that land himself before he started hiring help, or if he bought it from those who did....
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 12:36:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 9:31:16 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/2/2011 9:17:49 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/2/2011 9:10:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The landlord isn't exploiting the worker just because he makes a profit.

But the landlord is taking almost half of the fruit of the worker's labor.

As opposed to what? The worker gains less value for twice the effort + more time if he works for himself.

Why does everyone have to either work alone or work for someone else? People are able to cooperate you know.

Would a more just solution not grant to the worker working the land his full product? Does the landlord not act in this scenario simply as a parasite?

First of all, "justice" isn't some high and noble concept that passes judgment on human relations. There is no "more just solution".

Justice is analagous to fairness. Why wouldn't a different solution possibly be more fair?

Second of all, granting workers their entire product runs into several problems:

1. Worker agreed to the arrangement.

That's not a problem with giving workers their entire product. People aren't really "agreeing" to anything by holding a job; they are simply trying their hardest to survive. If it were up to them, they would agree to not have to put up with the BS at most current jobs (quit). But not everyone would quit.

2. Even though the landlord doesn't perform physical labor, that doesn't mean that he sits around and does nothing.

That's also not relevant. Everyone has a function and they perform it. Should we run up to our CEOs and shake their hands and shower them with gifts? Should we reduce others to the margins based on what profession they choose? In our current society, one never considers 'making too much money' a bad thing because making money is directly proportional to our means of surviving, physically. So it's not surprising that no one thinks straight about the concept. When one controls too many private resources, however, they are wasted in extreme amounts.

3. Land and labor don't have value on their own--their value only results from exchanges.

That is logically perverse. Reality is not based on economics.

It's incoherent to say that the landlord must offer the worker 100% labor value, because it's up to the landlord to determine the extent to which he values the worker's labor.

That can be completed without devaluing it.

If the landlord isn't going to gain any value from hiring the workers (i.e. isn't going to profit), he has no incentive to hire them, and may as well let the land sit there. The only reason he has an incentive to price their labor a certain way is because the alternative that the workers could turn to has its own value--and the only reason he has an incentive to hold the land, decide the purpose toward which it will be directed, and hire workers is because he expects to profit from its cultivation.

You are unable to even argue from an objective standpoint. You basically assume capitalism and explain it instead of actually debating whether it is, more generally speaking, a good economic system as compared to something else. For instance, if a communistic system was attempted, then much of the points you are making would be moot (e.g., needing a profit to do anything).
kfc
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 12:59:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 8:03:28 PM, Reasoning wrote:
One man owns all the very fertile land and there is a surplus of moderately fertile land which anyone may work and keep the fruits. What wages will he pay to those that decide to work for him on his land? And the answer, which should be obvious if you think about it, is only slightly more than what they would earn were they to work the moderately fertile land, even though the MPL is twice that were he to work the moderately fertile land.

The reason he pays slightly more than what they would earn were they to work their own land is that he wants to entice workers to work for him but there is n need to pay them more as it is the best offer they can get.

I can't believe I'm actually hearing this argument from you. You do realize it's not just a matter of paying the workers more than they would earn farming the MFL themselves, the landlord has to compete with other landlords who offer higher wages.

The landlord simply pockets the surplus value of the worker's labor.

There's no such thing as "surplus value." Gimme a break...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 1:09:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 12:36:33 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/2/2011 9:31:16 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/2/2011 9:17:49 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/2/2011 9:10:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The landlord isn't exploiting the worker just because he makes a profit.

But the landlord is taking almost half of the fruit of the worker's labor.

As opposed to what? The worker gains less value for twice the effort + more time if he works for himself.

Why does everyone have to either work alone or work for someone else? People are able to cooperate you know.

Okay. Doesn't change the value gained.

Would a more just solution not grant to the worker working the land his full product? Does the landlord not act in this scenario simply as a parasite?

First of all, "justice" isn't some high and noble concept that passes judgment on human relations. There is no "more just solution".

Justice is analagous to fairness. Why wouldn't a different solution possibly be more fair?

Justice is only analogous to fairness if you define it that way. It could also mean "moral rightness", or "fair application of law", or something along those lines. Even so, what does it mean to be "fair"? Equitable? Contractually dependable? Or do you mean in the sense of a child crying "That isn't FAIR!" when he doesn't get what he wants?

Second of all, granting workers their entire product runs into several problems:

1. Worker agreed to the arrangement.

That's not a problem with giving workers their entire product. People aren't really "agreeing" to anything by holding a job; they are simply trying their hardest to survive.

Of course they're agreeing to something. It's called an employment contract. :P Hell, by your own sense of morality, the privilege of having a job entails certain responsibilities, does it not? :)

If it were up to them, they would agree to not have to put up with the BS at most current jobs (quit). But not everyone would quit.

If it were up to anyone to decide his circumstances, he would probably live in luxury, always having his needs and desires satisfied without having to work. Your point?

2. Even though the landlord doesn't perform physical labor, that doesn't mean that he sits around and does nothing.

That's also not relevant. Everyone has a function and they perform it. Should we run up to our CEOs and shake their hands and shower them with gifts?

Did I ever claim that we should shower any worker with praise? No.

Should we reduce others to the margins based on what profession they choose?

Economically, maybe. Janitorial labor, for example, isn't particularly valuable. Massive supply, fair demand, and it's cheap.

In our current society, one never considers 'making too much money' a bad thing because making money is directly proportional to our means of surviving, physically. So it's not surprising that no one thinks straight about the concept. When one controls too many private resources, however, they are wasted in extreme amounts.

Resource wasting is a conceivable consequence of large holdings, but not a necessary consequence.

3. Land and labor don't have value on their own--their value only results from exchanges.

That is logically perverse. Reality is not based on economics.

Your statement is logically perverse--you don't provide any context or justification. It's just an insult.

If, however, you would like to argue that land and labor have inherent value, rather than exchange and use-value, go for it.

It's incoherent to say that the landlord must offer the worker 100% labor value, because it's up to the landlord to determine the extent to which he values the worker's labor.

That can be completed without devaluing it.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. You say "devaluing" like there's some sort of preexisting value that the worker's labor has, and that, if the landlord doesn't meet it, there's some kind of insult happening.

If the landlord isn't going to gain any value from hiring the workers (i.e. isn't going to profit), he has no incentive to hire them, and may as well let the land sit there. The only reason he has an incentive to price their labor a certain way is because the alternative that the workers could turn to has its own value--and the only reason he has an incentive to hold the land, decide the purpose toward which it will be directed, and hire workers is because he expects to profit from its cultivation.

You are unable to even argue from an objective standpoint. You basically assume capitalism and explain it instead of actually debating whether it is, more generally speaking, a good economic system as compared to something else. For instance, if a communistic system was attempted, then much of the points you are making would be moot (e.g., needing a profit to do anything).

Nowhere in your rant did I see a refutation of my argument. Furthermore, it's not "assuming capitalism" to point out that there are huge incentive issues with Reasoning's proposition. You're reversing my chain of thinking to make it appear as "capitalism is true, therefore this is the case", when, realistically, my thinking is "this is the case--capitalism accounts for this--therefore, capitalism is the superior economic system".

Also, if you really want to get into the incentive problems of communism, be my guest.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 1:34:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 9:17:49 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/2/2011 9:10:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The landlord isn't exploiting the worker just because he makes a profit.

But the landlord is taking almost half of the fruit of the worker's labor.

Would a more just solution not grant to the worker working the land his full product? Does the landlord not act in this scenario simply as a parasite?

It is the landowners fruit, not the workers! How can you miss this?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 1:44:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 1:34:29 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/2/2011 9:17:49 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/2/2011 9:10:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The landlord isn't exploiting the worker just because he makes a profit.

But the landlord is taking almost half of the fruit of the worker's labor.

Would a more just solution not grant to the worker working the land his full product? Does the landlord not act in this scenario simply as a parasite?

It is the landowners fruit, not the workers! How can you miss this?

The worker doesn't own the fruits of his labor any more than a GM worker owns the cars rolling out of Detroit. When you make a minimal investment of 40 hours a week, you are entitled to an hourly wage and that's about it. When you invest your life savings and go in to debt, then you are entitled to a share in the end product, or something similar. If the reward does not fit the investment, it is wrong, it is unjust, it is unfair, it is stealing.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 4:04:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 12:36:33 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/2/2011 9:31:16 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/2/2011 9:17:49 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/2/2011 9:10:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The landlord isn't exploiting the worker just because he makes a profit.

But the landlord is taking almost half of the fruit of the worker's labor.

As opposed to what? The worker gains less value for twice the effort + more time if he works for himself.

Why does everyone have to either work alone or work for someone else? People are able to cooperate you know.
What's the difference between working for someone else (i.e. working under a contract that holds how the work is going to be done to mutual benefit) and "cooperating"?

3. Land and labor don't have value on their own--their value only results from exchanges.

That is logically perverse. Reality is not based on economics.
Hm? Economics is the study of reality as it pertains to economic activity. To assert that something has value in a vacuum is logically perverse indeed.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 8:51:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 12:36:33 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:

Justice is analagous to fairness. Why wouldn't a different solution possibly be more fair?
Justice and "fairness" are not analogous. Giving everyone what they deserve is usually different from giving everyone the same, regardless of merit. An example: Our justice system gives 20+ year prison sentences to certain heinous criminals. Fairness would dictate that everyone get 20 year prison sentences, whether they did a crime or not. All would get the same.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 9:50:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 12:59:40 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I can't believe I'm actually hearing this argument from you. You do realize it's not just a matter of paying the workers more than they would earn farming the MFL themselves, the landlord has to compete with other landlords who offer higher wages.

In this scenario, only a single individual owns all the VFL and the MFL is abundant and free.

I want to know how it's justified that an individual should receive about half the produce of a man's labor when all he has to do is lay idle.

Indeed, what's the big difference between this scenario and that of the tax man?

The landlord simply pockets the surplus value of the worker's labor.

There's no such thing as "surplus value." Gimme a break...

MPL - MC = Surplus Value
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 1:27:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 9:50:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/3/2011 12:59:40 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I can't believe I'm actually hearing this argument from you. You do realize it's not just a matter of paying the workers more than they would earn farming the MFL themselves, the landlord has to compete with other landlords who offer higher wages.

In this scenario, only a single individual owns all the VFL and the MFL is abundant and free.

I want to know how it's justified that an individual should receive about half the produce of a man's labor when all he has to do is lay idle.

Indeed, what's the big difference between this scenario and that of the tax man?

The difference between voluntarism and coercion. If the land owner owns the land legitimately, how is your scenario unjust?

The landlord simply pockets the surplus value of the worker's labor.

There's no such thing as "surplus value." Gimme a break...

MPL - MC = Surplus Value
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 2:08:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 1:27:42 PM, djsherin wrote:
The difference between voluntarism and coercion. If the land owner owns the land legitimately, how is your scenario unjust?

Land, by definition, cannot be a product of labor. This highly fertile land a gift of nature that one man has monopolized. By what right do we say that the land is his and that he can essentially take half the fruit of another's labor for working on it?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 2:12:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 2:08:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/3/2011 1:27:42 PM, djsherin wrote:
The difference between voluntarism and coercion. If the land owner owns the land legitimately, how is your scenario unjust?

Land, by definition, cannot be a product of labor. This highly fertile land a gift of nature that one man has monopolized. By what right do we say that the land is his and that he can essentially take half the fruit of another's labor for working on it?

I didn't say he has the right to the land; I said if he legitimately owns it. So my question is, does he or does he not own the land legitimately?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 2:23:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 2:12:25 PM, djsherin wrote:
At 4/3/2011 2:08:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/3/2011 1:27:42 PM, djsherin wrote:
The difference between voluntarism and coercion. If the land owner owns the land legitimately, how is your scenario unjust?

Land, by definition, cannot be a product of labor. This highly fertile land a gift of nature that one man has monopolized. By what right do we say that the land is his and that he can essentially take half the fruit of another's labor for working on it?

I didn't say he has the right to the land; I said if he legitimately owns it. So my question is, does he or does he not own the land legitimately?

And I'm saying the idea of someone owning land legitimately is a contradiction in terms.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 3:12:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 2:23:29 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/3/2011 2:12:25 PM, djsherin wrote:
At 4/3/2011 2:08:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/3/2011 1:27:42 PM, djsherin wrote:
The difference between voluntarism and coercion. If the land owner owns the land legitimately, how is your scenario unjust?

Land, by definition, cannot be a product of labor. This highly fertile land a gift of nature that one man has monopolized. By what right do we say that the land is his and that he can essentially take half the fruit of another's labor for working on it?

I didn't say he has the right to the land; I said if he legitimately owns it. So my question is, does he or does he not own the land legitimately?

And I'm saying the idea of someone owning land legitimately is a contradiction in terms.

Land in and of itself can't be legitimately owned perhaps, but land that has been homesteaded through the application of labor can be. By land, I'm referring to the economic definition of land.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 4:23:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Let's say there are two people, and a piece of land. One person wants to use the land for farming, another person wants to use the land for various playing activities: football, baseball, etc.

Now obviously these two people have contrast of interest. You can't exactly play in a land that is growing crops. So what is the best option? Have the farmer pay for the rights to exclude the man from using the land or vice versa. Whoever can get more "value" from the land owns the land. Thus, that is the scenario where property comes from. Property rights ensures that resources can be used for its most efficient use.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 3:21:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 2:23:29 PM, Reasoning wrote:

And I'm saying the idea of someone owning land legitimately is a contradiction in terms.

Just why is land not considered a commodity like any other good? Where do you think every commodity people own comes from, outer space? another dimension? Every commodity you own comes from nature of course if you trace it back far enough. Are you seriously saying a collection of rocks and soil that someone owns and calls it land is not a commodity? Are you really against the concept of ownership of any commodity if it comes from nature? Gold? Silver? Animals? Should I have a public right to all your gold assets since it came from mother earth?