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

The State vs Landlordism

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2010 2:00:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What is the difference between a state and a landlord?
"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
12/20/2010 2:03:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A landlord typically builds a house on a land before you ever got there, and then charges you money if you'd like to stay in the house (there are variations on the theme of course).

The state typically points a gun at you because you happen to exist, and demands money if you'd like to stay in existence/out of jail.
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.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2010 2:04:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/20/2010 2:00:35 PM, Reasoning wrote:
What is the difference between a state and a landlord?

A landlord is definitively a dictator, whereas a state can be democratic or meritocratic.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2010 2:26:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/20/2010 2:03:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A landlord typically builds a house on a land before you ever got there, and then charges you money if you'd like to stay in the house (there are variations on the theme of course).

Indeed, typical variations include conquest, genocide, slavery, inheritance, deception, blackmail, threats, sabotage, biological warfare, trickery, and simple theft. Methinks you confuse Objectivist myth with reality, but, as always, historical evidence is welcome.

The state typically points a gun at you because you happen to exist, and demands money if you'd like to stay in existence/out of jail.

Guns, like threats to life or liberty, are rarely directly necessary. The subjects of states, like the tenants of landlords, typically have every right to relocate; the landlord or governor's imagined authority is typically enough to carry his commands.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2010 6:22:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/20/2010 2:26:42 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 12/20/2010 2:03:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A landlord typically builds a house on a land before you ever got there, and then charges you money if you'd like to stay in the house (there are variations on the theme of course).

Indeed, typical variations include conquest, genocide, slavery, inheritance, deception, blackmail, threats, sabotage, biological warfare, trickery, and simple theft. Methinks you confuse Objectivist myth with reality
Methinks you confuse landlord with just plain lord. And inheritance means that the original landlord did that and simply transferred his stake. It's kind of hard to "simply steal" a house mind, without the other stuff.

but, as always, historical evidence is welcome.
"Landlord" is a job title, no need for history. Walk up to a friendly neighborhood landlord.


The state typically points a gun at you because you happen to exist, and demands money if you'd like to stay in existence/out of jail.

Guns, like threats to life or liberty, are rarely directly necessary.
Why do they send police to escort you to prison when you ignore the IRS then, instead of just a kind letter?

The subjects of states, like the tenants of landlords, typically have every right to relocate
Until you actually try and it's not to a state that agrees on the relevant issue, in which case you'll quickly find your new settlement part of an annexation.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2010 6:34:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In any case, unlike a landlord, the state claims land not only when it hasn't had any connection to the building of useful things on it, but when no one has done so at all-- it has the audacity to claim wilderness while leaving it as wilderness. Not even so much as a fenced hunting scheme.
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.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2010 6:41:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/20/2010 2:26:42 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 12/20/2010 2:03:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A landlord typically builds a house on a land before you ever got there, and then charges you money if you'd like to stay in the house (there are variations on the theme of course).

Indeed, typical variations include conquest, genocide, slavery, inheritance, deception, blackmail, threats, sabotage, biological warfare, trickery, and simple theft. Methinks you confuse Objectivist myth with reality, but, as always, historical evidence is welcome.

Funny, that sounds more like a government than a landlord.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2010 12:27:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/20/2010 6:41:56 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/20/2010 2:26:42 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 12/20/2010 2:03:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A landlord typically builds a house on a land before you ever got there, and then charges you money if you'd like to stay in the house (there are variations on the theme of course).

Indeed, typical variations include conquest, genocide, slavery, inheritance, deception, blackmail, threats, sabotage, biological warfare, trickery, and simple theft. Methinks you confuse Objectivist myth with reality, but, as always, historical evidence is welcome.

Funny, that sounds more like a government than a landlord.

My request for evidence should have told that "sounds like" arguments are worthless. Anyway, you talk as if governments and landlords are independent, a big mistake.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2010 12:43:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/20/2010 2:03:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A landlord typically builds a house on a land before you ever got there, and then charges you money if you'd like to stay in the house (there are variations on the theme of course).

The state typically points a gun at you because you happen to exist, and demands money if you'd like to stay in existence/out of jail.

You forgot to mention that the landlord requires the state in-order to force money out of you just so you can have a place to live.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2010 12:45:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/20/2010 6:22:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/20/2010 2:26:42 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 12/20/2010 2:03:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A landlord typically builds a house on a land before you ever got there, and then charges you money if you'd like to stay in the house (there are variations on the theme of course).

Indeed, typical variations include conquest, genocide, slavery, inheritance, deception, blackmail, threats, sabotage, biological warfare, trickery, and simple theft. Methinks you confuse Objectivist myth with reality
Methinks you confuse landlord with just plain lord. And inheritance means that the original landlord did that and simply transferred his stake. It's kind of hard to "simply steal" a house mind, without the other stuff.

"House mind"? Even if the average landlord's descendant by transfer were a house-builder or variation thereof (it isn't), your assertion that the typical landlord is himself a house-builder or variation thereof would still be incorrect. The distinction is of more than semantic importance; a house-builder wouldn't be a particularly good judge of who to transfer land to even if he intended to be.

but, as always, historical evidence is welcome.
"Landlord" is a job title, no need for history. Walk up to a friendly neighborhood landlord.

Walk up to a friendly neighborhood governor. He probably doesn't even own a gun, much less point it at anyone.

The state typically points a gun at you because you happen to exist, and demands money if you'd like to stay in existence/out of jail.

Guns, like threats to life or liberty, are rarely directly necessary.
Why do they send police to escort you to prison when you ignore the IRS then, instead of just a kind letter?

Right, because a landlord would never call the police in response to an ignored eviction.

The subjects of states, like the tenants of landlords, typically have every right to relocate
Until you actually try and it's not to a state that agrees on the relevant issue, in which case you'll quickly find your new settlement part of an annexation.

You're mad. Do you honestly think the US would respond to your emigration by annexing your new home? You'd be as wise to expect your former landlord to steal the property of your new one.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2010 12:49:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/21/2010 12:43:49 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/20/2010 2:03:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A landlord typically builds a house on a land before you ever got there, and then charges you money if you'd like to stay in the house (there are variations on the theme of course).

The state typically points a gun at you because you happen to exist, and demands money if you'd like to stay in existence/out of jail.

You forgot to mention that the landlord requires the state in-order to force money out of you just so you can have a place to live.

Nah, a landlord can enforce his own property rights. All he needs is a rifle and a pistol, and he'll keep the wrongdoers off his property.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2010 12:52:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/21/2010 12:49:35 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/21/2010 12:43:49 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/20/2010 2:03:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A landlord typically builds a house on a land before you ever got there, and then charges you money if you'd like to stay in the house (there are variations on the theme of course).

The state typically points a gun at you because you happen to exist, and demands money if you'd like to stay in existence/out of jail.

You forgot to mention that the landlord requires the state in-order to force money out of you just so you can have a place to live.

Nah, a landlord can enforce his own property rights. All he needs is a rifle and a pistol, and he'll keep the wrongdoers off his property.

One a few own all the land--who is the wrongdoer?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2010 12:55:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/20/2010 6:34:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In any case, unlike a landlord, the state claims land not only when it hasn't had any connection to the building of useful things on it, but when no one has done so at all-- it has the audacity to claim wilderness while leaving it as wilderness. Not even so much as a fenced hunting scheme.

State protection of wilderness is the only reason wilderness and therefore your argument still exist. Incidentally, it's untrue that wilderness is never privately owned. Even if it were, the difference between private and public ownership would be purely quantitative and marginal at that: publicly owned land having been made more valuable by a multiple greater than or equal to 1, privately owned land having been made more valuable by a multiple greater than 1.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2010 1:07:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/21/2010 12:52:48 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/21/2010 12:49:35 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/21/2010 12:43:49 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/20/2010 2:03:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A landlord typically builds a house on a land before you ever got there, and then charges you money if you'd like to stay in the house (there are variations on the theme of course).

The state typically points a gun at you because you happen to exist, and demands money if you'd like to stay in existence/out of jail.

You forgot to mention that the landlord requires the state in-order to force money out of you just so you can have a place to live.

Nah, a landlord can enforce his own property rights. All he needs is a rifle and a pistol, and he'll keep the wrongdoers off his property.

One a few own all the land--who is the wrongdoer?

All the land? No, he owns the land that he used his own capital to construct comfortable buildings on in the hopes of renting them to people for a return on his investment.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2010 1:20:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/21/2010 12:45:18 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 12/20/2010 6:22:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/20/2010 2:26:42 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
but, as always, historical evidence is welcome.
"Landlord" is a job title, no need for history. Walk up to a friendly neighborhood landlord.

Walk up to a friendly neighborhood governor. He probably doesn't even own a gun, much less point it at anyone.

Really? Try it. Usually, they have about half a dozen security guards though, who are perfectly capable of shooting you.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2010 1:39:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/21/2010 12:43:49 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/20/2010 2:03:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A landlord typically builds a house on a land before you ever got there, and then charges you money if you'd like to stay in the house (there are variations on the theme of course).

The state typically points a gun at you because you happen to exist, and demands money if you'd like to stay in existence/out of jail.

You forgot to mention that the landlord requires the state in-order to force money out of you just so you can have a place to live.

And you require the state to make it rational for the landlord to construct a place for you to live (if you were prepared to construct your own shelter you would not be whining about landlords).

"House mind"?"
Bad comma use, sorry.

Even if the average landlord's descendant by transfer were a house-builder or variation thereof (it isn't)
The average landlord didn't inherit the land in question at all.

your assertion that the typical landlord is himself a house-builder or variation thereof would still be incorrect.
I regard the ancestor (not descendant) as the landlord for the purpose of this discussion. Someone who inherits from one is not, in regard to the properties they inherit, the person to whom the rights accrue, rather, the people who do have those rights simply decided to treat them.

a house-builder wouldn't be a particularly good judge of who to transfer land to.
There is no need for being a "good judge." They earned the right to it, and to take it away is to disincentivize building houses in the first place.

Walk up to a friendly neighborhood governor. He probably doesn't even own a gun, much less point it at anyone.
He commands legions of gunpointers.

Whereas the landlord hires (smaller numbers) of construction workers, and architects, thereby doing coordination and business planning work. The value of this work is demonstrated by the fact that the construction workers and architects tend not to succeed when they strike out without him.

Right, because a landlord would never call the police in response to an ignored eviction.
But not in response to an ignored advertisement, which is far more analogous. An eviction occurs when you've already either trespassed (not on a country, but on some place someone actually built something!) or signed a contract and broke it, or both.

You're mad. Do you honestly think the US would respond to your emigration by an
anexing your new home?
That does tend to be how micronations end. Name the place to which you propose I move and I'll name the incursion on liberty that will be attempted and probably successful.

State protection of wilderness is the only reason wilderness and therefore your argument still exist.
This assumes no diminishing returns on land.

Incidentally, it's untrue that wilderness is never privately owned.
There has to be something artificial to be found, or there can be no ownership. Sure, you can have a "wild backyard" if you fence it off, but only if you have a house in order to have a backyard.

Even if it were, the difference between private and public ownership would be purely quantitative and marginal at that: publicly owned land having been made more valuable by a multiple greater than or equal to 1, privately owned land having been made more valuable by a multiple greater than 1.
That's like saying that the difference between a killer and a nonkiller is quantitative, a killer having made things less living by a multiple of 0, a nonkiller having done so by a multiple of one. Clearly something's wrong with that picture.
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.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2010 1:58:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/21/2010 1:20:35 AM, mongoose wrote:
At 12/21/2010 12:45:18 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 12/20/2010 6:22:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/20/2010 2:26:42 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
but, as always, historical evidence is welcome.
"Landlord" is a job title, no need for history. Walk up to a friendly neighborhood landlord.

Walk up to a friendly neighborhood governor. He probably doesn't even own a gun, much less point it at anyone.

Really? Try it. Usually, they have about half a dozen security guards though, who are perfectly capable of shooting you.

I don't mean "governor" in the specific sense of the chief executive of a US state any more than Ragnar meant "landlord" in the specific sense of the owner of a great wealth of US land. Either individual might have security guards with guns. Lower on the totem pole, though, closer to the "neighborhood" level, the governor or landlord would have to call the police like anyone else.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2010 3:05:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/21/2010 1:39:41 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/21/2010 12:43:49 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/20/2010 2:03:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A landlord typically builds a house on a land before you ever got there, and then charges you money if you'd like to stay in the house (there are variations on the theme of course).

The state typically points a gun at you because you happen to exist, and demands money if you'd like to stay in existence/out of jail.

You forgot to mention that the landlord requires the state in-order to force money out of you just so you can have a place to live.

And you require the state to make it rational for the landlord to construct a place for you to live (if you were prepared to construct your own shelter you would not be whining about landlords).

That would be a reasonable assumption only if valuable land weren't scarce.

Even if the average landlord's descendant by transfer were a house-builder or variation thereof (it isn't)
The average landlord didn't inherit the land in question at all.

Nor did I mean him to have done. A transfer needn't be inheritance, after all. But nor does it have to be inheritance in order to have been irrational. And the more land the land-buyer bought, the more likely it is that he bought it, directly or indirectly, with inheritance.

your assertion that the typical landlord is himself a house-builder or variation thereof would still be incorrect.
I regard the ancestor (not descendant) as the landlord for the purpose of this discussion. Someone who inherits from one is not, in regard to the properties they inherit, the person to whom the rights accrue, rather, the people who do have those rights simply decided to treat them.

I'm well aware of your deontology, but this is the first time you or anyone else has defined the landlord as the landlord's ancestor. You should make your nonstandard vocabulary clear before you start asserting things that are otherwise demonstrably false.

a house-builder wouldn't be a particularly good judge of who to transfer land to.
There is no need for being a "good judge." They earned the right to it, and to take it away is to disincentivize building houses in the first place.

So is failing to give the house-builder all the wealth in the world. There is of course a point at which incentives become excessive, and the incentives you arbitrarily prefer are beyond that point. Specifically, they're excessive to the point of infinity (the slightest improvement confers full ownership for as long as the owner or his descendants by transfer make the slightest use of the land), meaning disproportionality and therefore gross inefficiency.

Whereas the landlord hires (smaller numbers) of construction workers, and architects, thereby doing coordination and business planning work. The value of this work is demonstrated by the fact that the construction workers and architects tend not to succeed when they strike out without him.

Aren't you forgetting the value of the land itself? It's indeed difficult to succeed at building on 0 acres. Anyway, your distinction is false. Governors, too, hire architects and construction workers; landlords, too, call on the police to defend their property pretensions.

Right, because a landlord would never call the police in response to an ignored eviction.
But not in response to an ignored advertisement, which is far more analogous. An eviction occurs when you've already either trespassed (not on a country, but on some place someone actually built something!) or signed a contract and broke it, or both.

Your definition of a country as a place no one's built anything is again nonstandard.

State protection of wilderness is the only reason wilderness and therefore your argument still exist.
This assumes no diminishing returns on land.

No, it simply recognizes the finite supply of land, the large and ever-growing population, and the nominal amount of work you require of the would-be landowner.

Incidentally, it's untrue that wilderness is never privately owned.
There has to be something artificial to be found, or there can be no ownership. Sure, you can have a "wild backyard" if you fence it off, but only if you have a house in order to have a backyard.

Again, I'm talking about reality, not Objectivist mythology.

Even if it were, the difference between private and public ownership would be purely quantitative and marginal at that: publicly owned land having been made more valuable by a multiple greater than or equal to 1, privately owned land having been made more valuable by a multiple greater than 1.
That's like saying that the difference between a killer and a nonkiller is quantitative, a killer having made things less living by a multiple of 0, a nonkiller having done so by a multiple of one. Clearly something's wrong with that picture.

What's wrong is that it's a false analogy. The killer's multiple is the minimum, 0; the non-killer's is the maximum, 1. There's no overlap, and the non-killer's multiple is infinity times the killer's. By contrast, private ownership's multiple is only a margin higher than public ownership's; the overlap is infinity times the rest.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2010 3:51:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/21/2010 3:05:13 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 12/21/2010 1:39:41 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/21/2010 12:43:49 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/20/2010 2:03:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A landlord typically builds a house on a land before you ever got there, and then charges you money if you'd like to stay in the house (there are variations on the theme of course).

The state typically points a gun at you because you happen to exist, and demands money if you'd like to stay in existence/out of jail.

You forgot to mention that the landlord requires the state in-order to force money out of you just so you can have a place to live.

And you require the state to make it rational for the landlord to construct a place for you to live (if you were prepared to construct your own shelter you would not be whining about landlords).

That would be a reasonable assumption only if valuable land weren't scarce.
Unimproved land is presently available. It's ungoverned land that's lacking.


Even if the average landlord's descendant by transfer were a house-builder or variation thereof (it isn't)
The average landlord didn't inherit the land in question at all.

Nor did I mean him to have done. A transfer needn't be inheritance, after all. But nor does it have to be inheritance in order to have been irrational. And the more land the land-buyer bought, the more likely it is that he bought it, directly or indirectly, with inheritance.
14 percent of the wealth for the wealthiest is inheritance.


a house-builder wouldn't be a particularly good judge of who to transfer land to.
There is no need for being a "good judge." They earned the right to it, and to take it away is to disincentivize building houses in the first place.

So is failing to give the house-builder all the wealth in the world.
No, that's to key the incentive to the thing.

There is of course a point at which incentives become excessive, and the incentives you arbitrarily prefer are beyond that point.
Getting what you make?

Specifically, they're excessive to the point of infinity (the slightest improvement confers full ownership for as long as the owner or his descendants by transfer make the slightest use of the land), meaning disproportionality and therefore gross inefficiency.
As opposed to what, divine land allocation?

Whereas the landlord hires (smaller numbers) of construction workers, and architects, thereby doing coordination and business planning work. The value of this work is demonstrated by the fact that the construction workers and architects tend not to succeed when they strike out without him.


Aren't you forgetting the value of the land itself? It's indeed difficult to succeed at building on 0 acres.
They tend to fail even in cases in which past governments have permitted them to take over that land.

Anyway, your distinction is false. Governors, too, hire architects and construction workers
Not prior to their claim, and not for everything they claim.

Right, because a landlord would never call the police in response to an ignored eviction.
But not in response to an ignored advertisement, which is far more analogous. An eviction occurs when you've already either trespassed (not on a country, but on some place someone actually built something!) or signed a contract and broke it, or both.

Your definition of a country as a place no one's built anything is again nonstandard.
Show me a country then show me who built it-- built on or even near all bits of land it claims. Not a definition, an assertion.


State protection of wilderness is the only reason wilderness and therefore your argument still exist.
This assumes no diminishing returns on land.

No, it simply recognizes the finite supply of land, the large and ever-growing population, and the nominal amount of work you require of the would-be landowner.
Name a nominal labor. Most of them grant minimal ownership :P.


Incidentally, it's untrue that wilderness is never privately owned.
There has to be something artificial to be found, or there can be no ownership. Sure, you can have a "wild backyard" if you fence it off, but only if you have a house in order to have a backyard.

Again, I'm talking about reality, not Objectivist mythology.

I'm talking about ownership, not possession.


Even if it were, the difference between private and public ownership would be purely quantitative and marginal at that: publicly owned land having been made more valuable by a multiple greater than or equal to 1, privately owned land having been made more valuable by a multiple greater than 1.
That's like saying that the difference between a killer and a nonkiller is quantitative, a killer having made things less living by a multiple of 0, a nonkiller having done so by a multiple of one. Clearly something's wrong with that picture.

What's wrong is that it's a false analogy. The killer's multiple is the minimum, 0; the non-killer's is the maximum, 1. There's no overlap, and the non-killer's multiple is infinity times the killer's. By contrast, private ownership's multiple is only a margin higher than public ownership's; the overlap is infinity times the rest.
No, what's wrong is that the original thing analogized to is false. If the government has improved things by "greater than 1" somewhere, it acquires the same property rights as a private entity would. But it hasn't done that for what it claims, so in truth, there is no overlap-- property requires a multiple greater than 1, government's present claims involve less than or equal to one-- where they don't, indeed, it's no longer "public property," it's government property. :P.
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.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 1:08:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/22/2010 3:51:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/21/2010 3:05:13 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 12/21/2010 1:39:41 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And you require the state to make it rational for the landlord to construct a place for you to live (if you were prepared to construct your own shelter you would not be whining about landlords).

That would be a reasonable assumption only if valuable land weren't scarce.
Unimproved land is presently available. It's ungoverned land that's lacking.

The second sentence explains the first. We've actually been through this before, with you tacitly conceding the point by continuing to cycle through your Rolodex of libertarian arguments (next in line is the equally preposterous idea that the nominal improvements justify the negation of liberty that is the logical conclusion of the homesteading principle). Much time would be saved if you bothered to remove the debunked arguments from the Rolodex each time.

The average landlord didn't inherit the land in question at all.

Nor did I mean him to have done. A transfer needn't be inheritance, after all. But nor does it have to be inheritance in order to have been irrational. And the more land the land-buyer bought, the more likely it is that he bought it, directly or indirectly, with inheritance.
14 percent of the wealth for the wealthiest is inheritance.

First, "the wealthiest" is a subcategory with its own subcategories, just like its supercategory "landlords"; the wealth of the wealthiest of the wealthiest that is inheritance is greater than 14%, and so on. Second, you're only including the clearest form of inheritance, which happens to not even be the most significant. When a child receives a superior education, that's inheritance; when a child grows up in a neighborhood free of criminal influences, that's inheritance; etc.

So is failing to give the house-builder all the wealth in the world.
No, that's to key the incentive to the thing.

What's the sense in that? The house-builder would just sell the house anyway. Doesn't it make more sense to key the incentive to the marginal utility of the labor?

There is of course a point at which incentives become excessive, and the incentives you arbitrarily prefer are beyond that point.
Getting what you make?

The labor theory of value is debunked. It's possible, for example, to make two equally valuable products with two sets of inputs of unequal value, namely by applying more valuable labor to the less valuable set of inputs.

Specifically, they're excessive to the point of infinity (the slightest improvement confers full ownership for as long as the owner or his descendants by transfer make the slightest use of the land), meaning disproportionality and therefore gross inefficiency.
As opposed to what, divine land allocation?

No, as opposed to (for example) market allocation: an auction doesn't require a seller; provided there is a true money or other purely quantitative universal equivalent, an auction doesn't even require a recipient of that which buys the auctioned items.

Aren't you forgetting the value of the land itself? It's indeed difficult to succeed at building on 0 acres.
They tend to fail even in cases in which past governments have permitted them to take over that land.

That's not generally true (see, for example, the occupations of Argentine factories), but you missed my point. That some (but not all; see, for example, the occupied Argentine factories prior to the occupations) capitalists do some work doesn't imply that their work is proportional to their profits. The capital itself, prior to work, is valuable, not least because of its potential to be worked on/with. If any subset (the capitalists, in this case)
of the workers enters into negotiations with, in addition to their labor power, the full prior value of the capital, that they will receive a share of profits disproportional to their labor power is foretold by basic game theory.

Anyway, your distinction is false. Governors, too, hire architects and construction workers
Not prior to their claim, and not for everything they claim.

There you go flipping through your Rolodex again. You made a distinction; I exposed it as false; now you make a different distinction. Try remembering that your first distinction was false; generalize the strategy and you'll end up being wrong far less.

Name a nominal labor. Most of them grant minimal ownership :P.

Do you have data to back that up? If enclosing game-filled land confers ownership, would you consider land (with game) whose optimal use is a resort quite as "minimal" as land whose optimal use is hunting grounds? If clearing vegetation confers ownership, would you consider clearing thick vegetation quite as nominal as clearing thin vegetation? If productively planting seed confers ownership, would you consider planting seed that can only painstakingly be productively planted as nominal as planting seed that can easily be productively planted (and whose harvest is therefore less valuable, c.p.); what's to stop a homesteader planting the most easily productively planted crop and then selling his resultant, permanent claim at the high price determined by the most profitable crop that can be grown there?; what's to stop him from leveraging his scarce resource to hire at low wages others to grow the most profitable crop for the following eternity? And if your assertion below is correct, I could get an indefinitely-sized "backyard" just by defecating somewhere or perhaps erecting a pup tent.

I'm talking about ownership, not possession.

Of course, but the real problem is that your definition of "ownership" and therefore "landlord" is nonstandard, a fact you should always reveal earlier. If Reasoning went by your dictionary, this thread would've started with different words.

That's like saying that the difference between a killer and a nonkiller is quantitative, a killer having made things less living by a multiple of 0, a nonkiller having done so by a multiple of one. Clearly something's wrong with that picture.

What's wrong is that it's a false analogy. The killer's multiple is the minimum, 0; the non-killer's is the maximum, 1. There's no overlap, and the non-killer's multiple is infinity times the killer's. By contrast, private ownership's multiple is only a margin higher than public ownership's; the overlap is infinity times the rest.
No, what's wrong is that the original thing analogized to is false. If the government has improved things by "greater than 1" somewhere, it acquires the same property rights as a private entity would. But it hasn't done that for what it claims, so in truth, there is no overlap-- property requires a multiple greater than 1, government's present claims involve less than or equal to one-- where they don't, indeed, it's no longer "public property," it's government property. :P.

Even if that were true, there's in this case little difference between "greater than 1" and "1 or less". What interest would a government have in making land less valuable? What interest would a homesteader have in wasting the resources necessary to acquire the labor power necessary to greatly improve land?; while he'd be increasing his labor power, wiser folk would be doing the nominal amount of labor necessary to claim the land, after which short time they could increase their own labor power, claim still more land, or simply collect rent, perhaps from the sucker in question.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 3:00:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/22/2010 7:41:04 PM, Tidin wrote:
AnCom is just another form of statism.

I don't suppose there is some reasoning behind that statement...

I could say atheism is "just another form" of religion as well. In both cases, you are simply making the state and religion fundamental aspects of existence, not choices we have to make. If a society that doesn't enact laws is a "state," then statism is a rather simplistic term.
no comment
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 3:13:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/20/2010 2:00:35 PM, Reasoning wrote:
What is the difference between a state and a landlord?

A state is a central government which uses brute force to control its citizens. A landlord is one who controls a parcel of land by brute force. There is a fair amount of overlap here and the two tend to legitimize each other's existence.
no comment
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 5:23:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 3:13:25 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 12/20/2010 2:00:35 PM, Reasoning wrote:
What is the difference between a state and a landlord?

A state is a central government which uses brute force to control its citizens. A landlord is one who controls a parcel of land by brute force. There is a fair amount of overlap here and the two tend to legitimize each other's existence.

Does the state not also control a parcel of land? IS there really such a great difference between a citizen and a tenant?
"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
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 5:31:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 5:23:18 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/29/2010 3:13:25 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 12/20/2010 2:00:35 PM, Reasoning wrote:
What is the difference between a state and a landlord?

A state is a central government which uses brute force to control its citizens. A landlord is one who controls a parcel of land by brute force. There is a fair amount of overlap here and the two tend to legitimize each other's existence.

Does the state not also control a parcel of land? IS there really such a great difference between a citizen and a tenant?

If we assume that both have the necessary force to enforce whatever rules they propose, then there is no difference.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 5:41:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 5:33:09 PM, mongeese wrote:
A landlord claims land by building houses on it.

Plenty of current landlords did not acquire the land in this fashion.
"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
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 5:41:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 5:33:09 PM, mongeese wrote:
A landlord claims land by building houses on it. A state claims land by pointing every which way and saying "Mine!"

Furthermore, is this really the only difference?
"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
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2010 5:43:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/29/2010 5:41:42 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/29/2010 5:33:09 PM, mongeese wrote:
A landlord claims land by building houses on it. A state claims land by pointing every which way and saying "Mine!"

Furthermore, is this really the only difference?

No, it was just a jab at the government.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"