The Single Tax - Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Roy L]

That really depends on the mechanism for LVT collection, yes?

Well, sure, just like running a viable retail operation depends on a mechanism for collecting money from customers. This is not some kind of big mystery.

How do we find someone so virtuous and incorruptible that it would work?

If everything's in the open, which it can and should be, the secrecy needed to enable corruption is absent.

Also, how is "good" land defined?

Above average value per area.

You and I may consider a piece of the empty sonoran desert undesirable, but a thoughtful person can probably find a way to make use of it. Down in Tuscon they have tourist traps and horse/cattle ranches, for example.

Yes, but they use a lot of land, and wouldn't be willing or able to pay much rent for it.

 

[Roy L]

See "Privatization Of Roads And Highways: Human And Economic Factors".

Historically, privately built roads have had two consistent results: their builders went broke, and the owners of the land along their routes got rich.

See also the famous "Tragedy Of The Commons".

Which the author, Garrett Hardin, has said he should have called, "The Tragedy of the UNMANAGED Commons," as the actual historical commons, being managed, suffered no such tragedy.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Most people who really research it already like it better than the prevailing system (Rothbard certainly did). The problem is, as I mentioned earlier, that it's remarkably naive to trust the government with this sort of thing-especially the American government. The tax revenues would have to be administered by a truly accountable and reliable entity.

It is easy to monitor as it is only one tax.

The problem is referring to LVT as a tax. It is not a tax as it reclaims community created wealth. In Denmark the population thought LVT just another tax. The word Geonomics has to be used. Then a snide government influenced by vested-interest groups cannot backslide.

Geonomics Proven To Work

Denmark prospered under the Geoist system for 3 years until right-wing vested interest of landowners scupperred it. Geonomics were imposed for three years but the diminishing after-effects were seen for approximately another four years.

The Danes, by old tradition, have been accustomed to the concept that the land belongs to the people. The rapid industrialisation and land enclosures of the 18th and 19th centuries, begun in England and made impact in Denmark challenging this tradition. More land was seized as industrialisation grew in Denmark.

Liberals Adopt LVT

Farmers were pressed in the later half of the 19th century; many of them found support in the ideas contained in a newly released book "Progress and Poverty", by Henry George. As the economic situation became even tougher for small farmers, a so called "Georgist" movement began and the Danish Henry George Union was founded in 1902. Some of its more active members wanted a better platform for their political ambitions, and these members cooperated with other philosophic groups and public leaders in forming the Radical Left Wing Party (Liberals), declaring that:

1. Land value taxation, LVT, (site revenue) should collect all the publicly created rent of land for government expenses,
2. Income Tax to be abolished accelerating the free market

Around this time of course, Karl Marx was advocating that the workers unite to fight the desperate conditions of the working man as a grinding poverty level was created in the fall-out of the Industrial Revolution. The Danes took the line of American Henry George who was also concerned at seeing that such a level of poverty existed in an age of rapid technological and mass production advancements. George's solution was different to Marx. Social Democrats were inspired by George advocating in its political program the taxation of land value, know as Site Revenue.

Parties join to create the Economic Justice Party

Over the next fifty years, not only in Denmark but around the world, there was long and intense debate about liberty and freedom; amongst free traders, pacifists, humanists, philosophers and religious institutions alike. Many of these people went to each other's meetings and contributed articles to each other's publications. Finally, they knew each other so well, that many of them decided to establish a union with the object of appealing to voters for seats in Parliament. The Justice Party was formed.

The economic policy of the Justice Party was simple; to collect tax only from the value of land and abolish all taxes on labour and capital. For a new political party, their effect was astonishing. Progress was quick and in 1952, they won 12 seats of a possible 179. They effected the appointment of a Government commission for ground rent in Denmark, who wrote its report clearly advocating the benefits of site revenue. In 1957 the Justice Party, together with the Social Democrats (Labour) and the Radical Left Wing Party (Liberals) formed what was to become the most prosperous ever Danish Government - later termed the Ground Rent Government.

Three political parties made an agreement based upon the following:

• Collection taxes from the values of land only (LVT)
• Liberalisation of trade
• A tax freeze

It was therefore generally expected that after formation of the government, some kind of LVT would be introduced. Land speculation ceased immediately in anticipation of LVT. Legislation on taxation of increased land value was prepared, presented to parliament and passed.

The economic effects of the cessation of land speculation were astounding and aroused much attention. On the 2nd October, 1960, the New York Times headlined, "Big Lesson from a Small Nation."

Prior to the election of 1957, Denmark had a sizable deficit on her balance of payments, was considerably in debt abroad, and burdened with a relatively high interest rate, big unemployment figures and an annual rate of inflation of approximately 5%.

From 1957 to 1960, the following improvements took place:

• The big deficit on her balance of payments was turned into a surplus.
• Denmark's total debts abroad amounting to 1,600 million kr. were reduced to one quarter of this, about 400 million kr.
• The rate of interest, and hence mortgage levels dropped.
• Unemployment was soon replaced by almost full employment, together with considerable increases in production and wages.
• Inflation was brought to a standstill. All wage increases were real wage increases, the highest ever in Denmark.
• No other taxes were levied during this period. (except one, referred to later.)
• The time was free of strikes. Industrial production went up 32%,
• investment rose 135%
• Savings increased immensely, as once again it became profitable to accumulate savings.

After three years in power, Denmark had no foreign debt, no inflation and an unemployment level of 1%, considered full employment. So why is this not continuing?

• Until 1960, the Social Democrats were advocating the LVT for the purposes of government social responsibilities, the Radicals and Justice Party advocated LVT for the purposes of income tax reduction. Minor conflict developed.
• Prior to 1960, "Georgist" beliefs dictated that when a heavy "tax" is levied upon land value, land price will decrease. The consequences of full employment, no inflation, no foreign debt, increasing production and rising real wages however, brought about a prodigious demand for homes, enterprises and of course land. Land prices did not initially fall, as was predicted. In fact land prices rose. The Justice Party was unprepared for this.
• In the late fifties, the Danish foreign debt was seen to be at crisis level. To assist with this, the Ground Rent Government did levy one new income tax. In addition to this of course, rising real incomes were eroded in part with the progressive nature of income tax on higher incomes. The self interested wealthy land owners had a field day confusing the fact that overall, taxes did go down by 10%. The general public found little reason to doubt the anti-Georgist literature stating that LVT was simply another tax on top of all the other taxes. The land owners had no problem in fanning the now growing belief that the "socialists", (read communists, given the Cold War era), wanted to get hold of your property.

At the general election of 1960, the opposition used, for the time, the largest sum ever in any Danish election campaign, financed by the Conservatives and Landowner associations. Such is the power of self-interested groups. With its limited financial resources and lacking support from the daily press, the Justice Party was unable to withstand the attacks. Agitation against the LVT legislation continued after the election and the new, weakened government gave in. Further strong pressure from land-owner associations had the LVT laws repealed in 1964.

After 1964:

• The currency surplus became a currency deficit.
• The annual deficit on the balance of payments in 1972 was 3 billion kr.
• Debts abroad amount today to 20,000 million kr.
• The effective rate of interest has been doubled.
• Land prices jumped sky-high. Denmark's overall land value rose from 17 billion kr. at the assessment of 1960 to 67 billion in 1969, and reached 100 billion at the next assessment in 1973.
• Rents in new housing are six fold those of 1964.
• The rate of inflation rose from barely 1 per cent to 5-7 per cent and was 8.6 per cent in 1965, the year after repeal of the land tax law in 1964.
• Taxes have risen again and again and are today five times higher.

A comparison between the three periods, before, during and after the so-called "Ground Rent Government," gives a clear picture of the importance of eliminating land speculation. LVT can do that painlessly.

The failure of the Justice Party was a naïve underestimation of the facts that:

1. Population were not educated to what LVT was - Only few Danes knew what LVT was all about, most people did not know the good effects they already enjoyed because of LVT and that the possibilities of citizens in general would improve further when more LVT would be levied; people in general did not understand that the revenue of LVT belonged to them all in common.
2. Landowners & Self-Interest Groups Oppose - The extremely powerful opposing powers dominating the public media - electronic and printed, which imposed on people in general the understanding that LVT was a tax like all other taxes, that it would be unjust if only landowners should pay all taxes, etc. Further they emphasized that poor citizens having no income or only small income would not take advantage of reduction of income taxes, which was crucial because many LVT proponents promised reduced income tax when LVT was publicly collected.

 

[Roy L]

Land rights extend from the center of the Earth to the outer edges of the atmosphere.

Only according to some arbitrary law book.

People don't enforce their rights against airplanes because it is no big deal, but before the airplane it was virtually no issue at all.

People don't enforce their property "rights" in land at all: government does it for them.

Where do you think property rights begin and end?

As land is not a product of labor, it can never rightly have become property in the first place.

The infrastructure problem could be cured by the free market.

Only by the truly free market of LVT. There is no other way to finance efficient amounts of infrastructure.

 

[Steven Douglas]

As land is not a product of labor, it can never rightly have become property in the first place.

Normative gibberish.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Originally Posted by Roy L:
As land is not a product of labor, it can never rightly have become property in the first place.

Normative gibberish.

Roy is 100% correct. Steven, you fail to understand basic economics.

The great thing about LVT is that you do not need to go beyond the most basic of the basics of economics to grasp it. It is very simple.

 

[Travlyr]

Roy is 100% correct. Steven, you fail to understand basic economics.

The great thing about LVT is that you do not need to go beyond the most basic of the basics of economics to grasp it. It is very simple.

Under LVT, when a person rents land, what are the vertical boundaries? Can the renter mine the land? How deep? Can a renter build on the land? How high?

 

[EcoWarrier]

Under LVT, when a person rents land, what are the vertical boundaries? Can the renter mine the land? How deep? Can a renter build on the land? How high?

That depends on the laws of the land. Buy the title of land near an airport and attempt to put the tallest building in the world in front of the runway and see what happens

Drill down and find oil and see if you own the oil. You may find you do not. Drill down and affect the stability of the land and see what happens.

 

[Steven Douglas]

As land is not a product of labor, it can never rightly have become property in the first place.

Normative gibberish.

Roy is 100% correct. Steven, you fail to understand basic economics.

More gibberish, and a non-sequitur. Basic economics deals with positives, not normatives (shoulds/oughts). Did you mean to say normative economics? Because Roy's statement does not follow from "basic economics" (whatever you think that is - you didn't bother clarifying what you meant, nor did you argue any point). If you think it does, stow your wet blanket assertions, provide your sources, and make an actual argument.

Roy's assertion that "[land] can never rightly have become property" was normative, crossing directly into the realm of politics by the use of the word "rightly". However, even without the word "rightly", the statement that property is somehow constrained to products of labor is erroneous and easily falsified, as land that is not useful to a desired purpose in its raw form does indeed become a "product of labor" once it is drilled, filled, graded, shaped or otherwise transformed to a desired purpose. That's without paving, plumbing, buildings or any other improvements that are added to the land that did not come directly therefrom.

As an analogue, it's the difference between raw sand and a polished silicon substrate without any other circuitry applied to its surface. That is a product of labor that is ready for use as a factor of production, but physically it is nothing more than refined sand. The only real differences between such "finished" land and other products of labor are its scale and the fixity of its location.

 

[Roy L]

Normative gibberish.

You cannot alter facts by calling them names.

 

[Roy L]

Under LVT, when a person rents land, what are the vertical boundaries? Can the renter mine the land? How deep? Can a renter build on the land? How high?

In general, he can use the land as he wishes subject to nuisance and public safety laws, zoning, etc. If he degrades the value of the land by, e.g., extracting a non-renewable resource, contaminating the soil, etc., he will also have to pay a "severance" tax.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Problem is, the available evidence is massively on the other side. The richest, most advanced and happiest countries all have big governments, and countries with small governments are almost always $#!+-holes.

Those countries with massive governments provide the illusion of prosperity along with bread and circuses. For quite a long time the EU states tried to live happily with a big government, but now they're facing the consequences. ("Happy" is also a subjective term. Living in simple poverty and/or squalor makes some people happy, like Thoreau) Germans are traditionally a very advanced and rich people. At the same time, they suffered great misery and tyranny from the regimes. The US government is massive, yet the average person struggles a great deal from the tyranny of the regime. Although happiness often comes with wealth, the correlation is not that strong. The EU is a massive government, but the happiest folks are those on the receiving end of the welfare system. The more productive people in that supra-state tend to be quite unhappy.

The reason people in countries with small governments tend to be assholes is that they are screwed over by the elites. This forces them into a lower standard of living, working more and getting less for it.

In summary, correlation is not causation.

 

[Steven Douglas]

You cannot alter facts by calling them names.

Pearls, Roy. If you took that to heart, the vast majority of what you've written here would crumble - vanish into thin air.

 

[Roy L]

Basic economics deals with positives, not normatives (shoulds/oughts).

The insistence on a dichotomy between positive and normative merely expresses a desire to ignore facts that prove your beliefs are not only false but evil.

Roy's assertion that "[land] can never rightly have become property" was normative, crossing directly into the realm of politics by the use of the word "rightly".

Garbage. I was responding to a post that ALREADY USED the term, "property right."

However, even without the word "rightly", the statement that property is somehow constrained to products of labor is erroneous and easily falsified,

False.

as land that is not useful to a desired purpose in its raw form does indeed become a "product of labor" once it is drilled, filled, graded, shaped or otherwise transformed to a desired purpose.

Nope. Such transformations are only superficial additions to the natural resources of the location and substrata. No matter how much you change the surface, it is resting on layers you haven't changed, which are therefore not products of labor, and therefore not rightly your property.

You stand refuted.

That's without paving, plumbing, buildings or any other improvements that are added to the land that did not come directly therefrom.

Any surface improvement is only added to land (what nature provided); it is not itself land.

As an analogue, it's the difference between raw sand and a polished silicon substrate without any other circuitry applied to its surface.

The latter is a product of labor. The former, in situ, is not. You stand refuted.

That is a product of labor that is ready for use as a factor of production, but physically it is nothing more than refined sand.

It is capital, not land. You stand refuted.

The only real differences between such "finished" land

There is no such thing as "finished" land. That is nothing but an oxymoron. You stand refuted.

and other products of labor are its scale and the fixity of its location.

Land is not a product of labor, ever, by definition, full stop.

 

[Roy L]

Those countries with massive governments provide the illusion of prosperity along with bread and circuses.

Garbage. There is nothing illusory about the difference in prosperity between Slovenia and Somalia, or Swaziland and Switzerland.

For quite a long time the EU states tried to live happily with a big government, but now they're facing the consequences.

No, they are facing the consequences of trying to use a common currency without a common monetary policy.

("Happy" is also a subjective term. Living in simple poverty and/or squalor makes some people happy, like Thoreau)

Very few.

Germans are traditionally a very advanced and rich people. At the same time, they suffered great misery and tyranny from the regimes. The US government is massive, yet the average person struggles a great deal from the tyranny of the regime.

Not compared to Somalis or Swazis, they don't.

Although happiness often comes with wealth, the correlation is not that strong.

It's quite strong up to the point of comfort and security.

The EU is a massive government, but the happiest folks are those on the receiving end of the welfare system. The more productive people in that supra-state tend to be quite unhappy.

Evidence? Thought not.

The reason people in countries with small governments tend to be assholes is that they are screwed over by the elites. This forces them into a lower standard of living, working more and getting less for it.

Bingo.

In summary, correlation is not causation.

But it's closer to causation than an inverse relation.

 

[Roy L]

Pearls, Roy. If you took that to heart, the vast majority of what you've written here would crumble - vanish into thin air.

No, I have identified the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that prove my views are objectively correct, and you know it. That is why you have to resort to absurdities.

 

[Steven Douglas]

The insistence on a dichotomy between positive and normative merely expresses a desire to ignore facts that prove your beliefs are not only false but evil.

That's not an argument, Roy, that's ad hominem, calling my motives for saying something into question without actually advancing any argument whatsoever. In other words, you said nothing.

Garbage. I was responding to a post that ALREADY USED the term, "property right."

I don't care what you were responding to, your false statement was complete and could be examined in its own context, and on its own merits.

False.

Again, you argued nothing, said nothing.

Nope. Such transformations are only superficial additions to the natural resources of the location and substrata. No matter how much you change the surface, it is resting on layers you haven't changed, which are therefore not products of labor, and therefore not rightly your property.

Likewise, those underlying "unfinished raw layers" -- those always existed, and are not increased in value or affected in any way by community, government, infrastructure or anything else. You also don't have "natural liberty" with regard to the lithosphere beneath the Earth's crust. Just mass, inertia and gravity, with nothing to take credit for, nothing deprived, nothing to charge for. Its value is not a product of humanity at all, public or private.

And you still piped in with your circular, normative "therefore not rightly your property" assertion, as if you had actually established some kind of law (physical? moral? economic? philosophical? political?) that constrained property as exclusive of anything that is not a product of labor. AKA = gibberish.

You stand refuted.

Any surface improvement is only added to land (what nature provided); it is not itself land.

It's difference between "raw" and "finished". Nature provides trees which are cut down, sliced, planed and sanded into finished lumber. The improvements are products of labor, but it's all wood. By your logic such lumber is not a product of labor, because the nature provided the lumber, and all of the underlying "raw" parts of the wood still exist.

But that can't be what you meant, as you later state:

As an analogue, it's the difference between raw sand and a polished silicon substrate without any other circuitry applied to its surface.

The latter is a product of labor. The former, in situ, is not.

In point of fact, "in situ" is your only real argument - fixity being the only real qualifier upon which your entire philosophy hinges - even to the point of defining (in your mind) whether a thing can be considered (by you, Roy) a product of labor.

You admit that the silicon substrate is a product of labor, even though nature provided the sand that was refined. You could argue that it's a product of labor only because the entire mass of sand was removed (no longer "in situ"), molten, grown into ingots and completely reshaped. That, in your mind, is what makes that substrate, or lumber, or a wood carving, a product of labor. But that logic falls apart, completely falsified by this example:

That's a tree, Roy. It is both provided by nature and in situ. And it is also both a product of labor and a finished good, even though NOTHING external was added to it and its location remains fixed. In that respect it is fundamentally no different than this (sans external materials):

Make the "carving" large enough so that it is impossible to be physically moved makes it no less a product of labor.

Checkmate. See the difference between knowing the name of something and actually knowing something?

That is a product of labor that is ready for use as a factor of production, but physically it is nothing more than refined sand.

It is capital, not land. You stand refuted.

Said as if that was relevant, since the argument was not that the substrate is land, but is rather analogous to land (both of which are forms of capital). I guess you really do believe that you can alter facts by name calling, and you really don't know the difference between giving a name to something and actually knowing something.

There is no such thing as "finished" land. That is nothing but an oxymoron. You stand refuted.

Well, then there is no such thing as a "finished" tree carving either, like the one posted above. Because beneath the surface of that carving there is nothing but "raw tree", in situ. You would stand refuted, Roy, if you were actually standing.

Land is not a product of labor, ever, by definition, full stop.

Full stop? Wow, I guess that settled it. Thoroughly refuted above, your personal definition notwithstanding. If your preferred economics theory does not want to "call" land a product of labor, as a matter of convenience or by its definition (which you did not cite, source or provide), for whatever reason, that's fine. But calling it something (or excluding it from being called something) for the sake of that theory won't change the facts, or alter the nature of what it actually is - in reality and outside of that particular naming convention vacuum.

 

[Roy L]

The surprise isn't that pundits and politicians are hard put to provide an instance in which this has happened. The surprise is in the utter gall on the parts of those who would suggest that it doesn't happen.

??? It must be happening, because no one can name a case where it has happened???

ROTFL!!

Nobody collects that kind of data.

Because there aren't any.

There is no check box anywhere during a sale that says, "I'm selling my home because I can no longer afford to pay ridiculous rent payments to the government."

What is ridiculous about paying market value for what you take?

It's just recorded as a sale.

What stops you or anyone else from checking the circumstances of tax-sale owners?

The priceless logic employed here is your conflation of rentals and ownership; rental prices with sale prices, with the assumption that the word "want" refers to "wants to forever rent".

Those are all just fabrications on your part.

Compare with anything else that is actually owned, so that it's free of obfuscation:

You will now obfuscate:

The shovel that I own I paid for ONCE, even though I use it over and over again (and COULD rent it out to others). I may "want" that shovel just as badly as the first time I bought it every time I use it, but the original price, having already been paid, is amortized over the life of the shovel. That expectation isn't "priceless logic". It's absolutely and perfectly NORMAL for anything that is paid for ONCE and truly owned.

The shovel is a product of labor, not a privilege of violating others' rights without making just compensation.

Extend that logic out to a personal property tax, and ridiculousness of that logic becomes apparent in your paradigm wherein ownership is not even an option.

The logic can't be extended to a personal property tax, because personal property is a product of labor; it does not violate others' rights; and it does not get its value from government and the community. Ownership is not an option because land can't rightly be owned any more than people, the earth's atmosphere, or the sun can rightly be owned.

You already DID afford whatever it is you bought and own, like any other thing considered your property.

If you buy a car on time, it is your property, and "you already DID afford it" -- but you still have to make the payments, or it will be repossessed. Similarly, when you bought the land, you knew -- and agreed -- that the title depended on keeping the taxes current.

With landownership, you already ARE living somewhere you can afford, if that land is paid for.

But it is only "paid for" as long as you keep the taxes current.

Under LVT, the land becomes priceless -- not for sale -- FOR RENT ONLY, as the state assumes the role of those people geolibertarians hate and revile the most.

Lie. The greedy, evil private landowner is not the source of the rent he appropriates. Government and the community, by contrast, ARE the source of the rent that LVT enables them to recover to fund the spending that creates it. You know this. All your "arguments" are merely designed to ignore, conceal and obfuscate that simple, stubborn, crucial fact.

Wrong. "LVT" in and of itself doesn't have any of that. It doesn't have exemptions, and it doesn't have provisions for deferring payments. Your version might - Roy's versions would, but that's not "LVT" - those are your arbitrary PROPOSED exceptions to the LVT rule you want established.

No. The "exceptions" are not arbitrary in the least (you know you are just lying about that) and LVT is only a mechanism -- though the only possible mechanism -- for achieving the goals of liberty, justice and prosperity. It is not itself the goal, so its implementation must be designed with the true goals in mind, and not just pure LVT for LVT's sake.

That's where geolibs earn and deserve my complete and utter contempt as the callous soulless collectivist thieves that they are.

Normative gibberish.

Carry that forward to a personal property tax.

You can't, as the basic reasoning is not similar.

If someone doesn't have the cash to pay it, they can always liquidate their property. It's their "choice", right? They are "free" to not own, or to "own" (read=rent from the ultimate owner state) something cheaper. Silly Billies, with all that unnecessarily self-inflicted poverty.

If you can't afford to make just compensation to those whose rights you violate, don't violate their rights.

I have a better idea - how about we just keep the propertarian framework, and the widow can just own what was already paid for and is already hers by right?

Normative gibberish. It wasn't already paid for, and it's not hers by right.

And that obnoxiously vague thing called "community" that geolibs like to invoke for entitlements can go stuff itself,

Normative gibberish.

Greedy, evil, parasitic filth can go stuff themselves.

while the government remains nothing but a servant with a decidedly limited role.

I.e., nothing but a servant of greedy, evil landowning parasites, with a decidedly limited role of stealing from the productive and giving the money to greedy, idle landowning parasites in return for nothing.

The younger generation isn't held hostage.

Flat-out lie, as the current trend of adult children moving back in with their parents proves so very conclusively.

That's the geolib fantasy delusion.

It is self-evident and indisputable fact.

The thieves in that generation can go and do likewise, or draw back really bloody stumps when they try to lay collectivist claim to what truly isn't theirs at all.

The claim to an individual right to liberty IS truly theirs, and isn't collectivist, stop lying.

Really. All thieves must hang.

Landowners first.

Not the pretend thieves that geolibs make landowners out to be,

<yawn> Already proved a lie by the example of the bandit in the pass, which PROVED there is no substantive difference between a landowner and a literal thief.

but the real thieves, who rationalize theft by recognizing no individual ownership rights where land is concerned.

That is exactly the same evil "logic" by which slave owners accused the abolitionists of being "the real thieves."

Thank you for proving your position is baldly evil.

The real would-be thieves, who share in a collectivist balm for their thievery -- their sociopathic complicity for a guilt they should, but will never, feel.

Normative gibberish.

Whomever it is that strikes gold (even "property gold"), whether they earned it or just found it, is entitled to that gold - without regard to all the "genuinely poor" who were not as fortunate.

Normative gibberish. "Entitled"? Why?

 

[Steven Douglas]

I'll ignore your disingenuous deflection blather and all its preachy circular nonsense, and wait instead for your more timely response to my latest post - one that was directed specifically at you.

 

[Roy L]

That's not an argument, Roy, that's ad hominem, calling my motives for saying something into question without actually advancing any argument whatsoever. In other words, you said nothing.

Lie. I identified the fact that your retreat into claims of "normative" merely enables you to dodge facts you don't like.

I don't care what you were responding to,

Or what I said.

your false statement

Assumption without supportive argumentation.

was complete and could be examined in its own context, and on its own merits.

Nope. You just want to ignore the context in order to lie about what I plainly wrote.

Again, you argued nothing, said nothing.

Lie.

Likewise, those underlying "unfinished raw layers" -- those always existed, and are not increased in value or affected in any way by community, government, infrastructure or anything else.

Again, that is just a bald lie on your part. The value of the underlying layers nature provided is indisputably increased by the services and infrastructure government provides and the opportunities and amenities the community provides. That is why people are willing to pay more for them than for the natural layers in less advantageous locations.

You also don't have "natural liberty" with regard to the lithosphere beneath the Earth's crust.

Yes, you do, stop lying.

Just mass, inertia and gravity, with nothing to take credit for, nothing deprived, nothing to charge for.

Gibberish.

Its value is not a product of humanity at all, public or private.

Its value is indisputably a product of humanity. You are just spewing absurdities again.

And you still piped in with your circular, normative "therefore not rightly your property" assertion, as if you had actually established some kind of law (physical? moral? economic? philosophical? political?) that constrained property as exclusive of anything that is not a product of labor.

I have already provided the logical and moral basis for that principle: it is the only way private property doesn't violate others' rights by forcibly depriving them of what they would otherwise have.

AKA = gibberish.

Lie.

You stand refuted.

LOL! You have been destroyed.

It's difference between "raw" and "finished". Nature provides trees which are cut down, sliced, planed and sanded into finished lumber. The improvements are products of labor, but it's all wood. By your logic such lumber is not a product of labor, because the nature provided the lumber, and all of the underlying "raw" parts of the wood still exist.

Lie. Lumber IS a product of labor, nature did NOT provide it, and the underlying "raw" parts of the wood ceased to exist the moment the natural tree was cut down.

All these facts are self-evident and indisputable. You just have to spew absurdities in order to justify your desired atrocities.

But that can't be what you meant, as you later state:

It can't be what I meant because you just made it up and attributed it to me.

In point of fact, "in situ" is your only real argument

Lie.

- fixity being the only real qualifier upon which your entire philosophy hinges

Lie.

- even to the point of defining (in your mind) whether a thing can be considered (by you, Roy) a product of labor.

<sigh> Something that is unaltered by labor is indisputably not a product of labor. Something that has been removed from its natural place by labor has indisputably been altered by labor. I'm not sure what part of that you are having trouble understanding.

You admit that the silicon substrate is a product of labor, even though nature provided the sand that was refined. You could argue that it's a product of labor only because the entire mass of sand was removed (no longer "in situ"), molten, grown into ingots and completely reshaped. That, in your mind, is what makes that substrate, or lumber, or a wood carving, a product of labor.

Right: it's a product of labor because it was produced by labor. Sorry if that is too hard for you.

But that logic falls apart, completely falsified by this example:

Nope. It's not falsified at all. That's merely a product of labor that happens to be a fixed improvement, like the furrows in a plowed field.

That's a tree, Roy.

It's a stump, Steven.

It is both provided by nature

Lie. The pictured item was not provided by nature, and you know it. You are just deliberately lying.

and in situ. And it is also both a product of labor and a finished good, even though NOTHING external was added to it and its location remains fixed. In that respect it is fundamentally no different than this (sans external materials):

Make the "carving" large enough so that it is impossible to be physically moved makes it no less a product of labor.

Fixed improvements are products of labor. So? How do you imagine that argues against the fact that physical removal of resources is labor, or that the stump under the carving is still a natural resource (land) just as much as the untouched layers under the construction site?

Checkmate.

ROTFL! You just blundered into Fool's Mate, patzer.

See the difference between knowing the name of something and actually knowing something?

Indeed. You've made it crystal clear.

Said as if that was relevant, since the argument was not that the substrate is land, but is rather analogous to land (both of which are forms of capital).

No. Land is not capital; and as a product of labor, the substrate is not analogous to land.

I guess you really do believe that you can alter facts by name calling, and you really don't know the difference between giving a name to something and actually knowing something.

Content = 0. It is you who imagine you can make something untouched by labor into a product of labor just by calling it, "capital."

Well, then there is no such thing as a "finished" tree carving either, like the one posted above.

Non sequitur. The carving is not land.

Because beneath the surface of that carving there is nothing but "raw tree", in situ.

And...? What do you erroneously imagine that fact implies?

You would stand refuted, Roy, if you were actually standing.

No, I would stand refuted if you had ever actually offered any kind of factual or logical argument that refuted anything I had actually said.

But you haven't.

Thoroughly refuted above,

ROTFL!!

your personal definition notwithstanding.

It's the economic definition.

If your preferred economics theory does not want to "call" land a product of labor, as a matter of convenience or by its definition (which you did not cite, source or provide),

You know that the definition has been provided before:

"land, In economics, the resource that encompasses the natural resources used in production. In classical economics, the three factors of production are land, labour, and capital. Land was considered to be the “original and inexhaustible gift of nature.” In modern economics, it is broadly defined to include all that nature provides, including minerals, forest products, and water and land resources."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/329078/land

for whatever reason, that's fine. But calling it something (or excluding it from being called something) for the sake of that theory won't change the facts, or alter the nature of what it actually is - in reality and outside of that particular naming convention vacuum.

It doesn't matter what you call it. The crucial point is to distinguish between what is provided by nature and what is produced by human labor, and not call them the same thing.