An important note of clarification about the talk of people "creating land": noone actually creates land (it can be occupied, cultivated, improved upon, homesteaded, used as a factor of production, etc., but not created). Land in and of itself is not the product of anyone's labor. Matter is not created or destroyed. One does not have to be a geolibertarian to see this point either (I'm not one). Actually, I think that this fact creates problems for the geolibertarians, since all resources derive from the land in some sense and it is therefore going to be hard for them to realistically separate their land-conventions from affecting non-land property as well. Of course, I don't think most neo-lockeans understand the geolib's position very often.
GilesStratton: What Stranger is saying is that some "land" is submarginal, and as such is not the subject of human action. However, if this is so it is not an economic good, which land is defined to be. So by bringing the land into use, one is essentially asserting that it is an economic good, that it is land. The problem is that you're getting confused wrt the meaning of the term "land".
What Stranger is saying is that some "land" is submarginal, and as such is not the subject of human action. However, if this is so it is not an economic good, which land is defined to be.
So by bringing the land into use, one is essentially asserting that it is an economic good, that it is land. The problem is that you're getting confused wrt the meaning of the term "land".
But that still doesn't help us with the problem of how we decide who owns the land.
And I'm not buying that the ability to protect your land makes the land your own. If I build a car, it's mine because I built it. It's not mine because I protect it.
Yes, I am a huge Dodgers fan.
Anti-state since I learned about the Cuban Revolution and why my dad had to flee the country.
tonyfernandez:And I'm not buying that the ability to protect your land makes the land your own. If I build a car, it's mine because I built it. It's not mine because I protect it.
Your problem is that you cannot see that "land" has no meaning outside of a human production. We wouldn't think that, for example, the surface of the sun would be land, but if someday someone finds out a way to use it, then you would ask who decided that this man own the surface of the sun. Nobody decided, he simply created something that you now want to claim for yourself.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Stranger: tonyfernandez:And I'm not buying that the ability to protect your land makes the land your own. If I build a car, it's mine because I built it. It's not mine because I protect it. Your problem is that you cannot see that "land" has no meaning outside of a human production. We wouldn't think that, for example, the surface of the sun would be land, but if someday someone finds out a way to use it, then you would ask who decided that this man own the surface of the sun. Nobody decided, he simply created something that you now want to claim for yourself.
Nobody creates land (as in the actual surface matter of the earth) - what people create are *uses* for land.
Brainpolice: Nobody creates land (as in the actual surface matter of the earth) - what people create are *uses* for land.
Same thing.
Stranger: Brainpolice: Nobody creates land (as in the actual surface matter of the earth) - what people create are *uses* for land. Same thing.
No, not same thing. The existance of land is not dependant on human creation, it pre-exists all human activity and existance. Creating a *use* for land is not to create land - the thing of which one is inventing a use for already exists.
This may seem like nitpicking, but the claim that land is created is simply bizarre. To my knowledge, even a neo-Lockean property paradigm does not assert that land is created.
Brainpolice:This may seem like nitpicking, but the claim that land is created is simply bizarre. To my knowledge, even a neo-Lockean property paradigm does not assert that land is created.
But land as an economic good is. You're defining land as a space on the earth, whereas Stranger is referring to land as the object of human action, in other words, an economic good.
In regards to the latter, 100 years ago even the most fertile piece of soil would not have been considered land in the economic sense if it was surrounded by hundreds of meters of ocean. Now, however, we have had numerous advances in technology that allow us to use that soil to grow crops or whatever else one wishes, in other words, it has become an economic good, and in the relevant meaning of the word: land.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:This may seem like nitpicking, but the claim that land is created is simply bizarre. To my knowledge, even a neo-Lockean property paradigm does not assert that land is created. But land as an economic good is. You're defining land as a space on the earth, whereas Stranger is referring to land as the object of human action, in other words, an economic good. In regards to the latter, 100 years ago even the most fertile piece of soil would not have been considered land in the economic sense if it was surrounded by hundreds of meters of ocean. Now, however, we have had numerous advances in technology that allow us to use that soil to grow crops or whatever else one wishes, in other words, it has become an economic good, and in the relevant meaning of the word: land.
There is an obvious distinction between land as a space on the earth and *the economic value of land*. The fact that land is given value as an economic good does not mean that it is literally "created". It obviously is not "not land" prior to it being given economic value. Furthermore, it makes no sense whatsoever to define land strictly in terms of its economic value. Sure, *the value of land* is created, but not land as such.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:This may seem like nitpicking, but the claim that land is created is simply bizarre. To my knowledge, even a neo-Lockean property paradigm does not assert that land is created. But land as an economic good is. You're defining land as a space on the earth, whereas Stranger is referring to land as the object of human action, in other words, an economic good.
Actually, we were discussing the process of claiming ownership of land; this is not particularly relevant to land only as an economic good.
Not so. If that reasoning were valid, Standard Oil would have valid claim to ownership of much of the Middle East, having discovered oil reserves in an otherwise profitless chunk of desert. The island of Hawaii, for example, is surrounded by hundreds of meters of ocean - and has been owned for far longer than 100 years.
Nor is economic good the sole determinant of value. There is an awful lot of real estate that is not financially profitable, but retains a high level of value because of tradition, or esthetic pleasure. The converse is not always true, either - land (in the sense that you can step on it if you can get there) often had a much higher value (as reflected by sale price) than it's profitability warranted, during the Florida land boom of about 100 years ago.
As a side note, one of the reasons I distained the study of Economics for so long was the jargon - not the words I needed to learn, but the words I needed to forget previous understanding, when economists would use a common, well-known and well-understood term to mean something different than the standard dictionary definition. This needlessly obfuscates discussion, as it has here, and I've long viewed the practice as an indication of intentional occultism; keeping one's field of study obscured from the masses.
‘When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.' ‘The question is,' said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things." ‘The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that's all.'" -- Lewis Carroll, _Through The Looking Glass and What Alice Found There_. Danno, wondering which side of the glass I'm on this time....
‘When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.' ‘The question is,' said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things." ‘The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that's all.'" -- Lewis Carroll, _Through The Looking Glass and What Alice Found There_
‘The question is,' said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things."
‘The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that's all.'" -- Lewis Carroll, _Through The Looking Glass and What Alice Found There_
Danno, wondering which side of the glass I'm on this time....
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
Exactly!
Danno:Actually, we were discussing the process of claiming ownership of land; this is not particularly relevant to land only as an economic good.
Actually, I was correcting somebody who disagreed with Stranger. So it's irrelevant what you were originally concerned with, my point was that Stranger was correct, land as an economic good can be created.
Danno:Not so. If that reasoning were valid, Standard Oil would have valid claim to ownership of much of the Middle East, having discovered oil reserves in an otherwise profitless chunk of desert. The island of Hawaii, for example, is surrounded by hundreds of meters of ocean - and has been owned for far longer than 100 years.
That was an example, and wrt to Hawaii, you're being a pedant and I've no time for it. As concerns Standard Oil, no, they don't, but that's a question of political theory and not economics, one I don't much feel like discussing.
Danno:Nor is economic good the sole determinant of value.
I don't think you know what you're talking about, economics is the study of price formation.
Claiming ownership is relevant only to economic goods.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap