[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Natural resources -- including land -- are, by definition, completely useless
> until somebody takes first ownership and makes something of them. Try a
> little thought exercise:
>
> "David Hillary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [big snip]
> > The right to exclude other's from nature's benefits is a government
> > granted right and it has economic value. Land titles are government
> > created legal rights to the exclusive use of natural resources. Land and
> > natural resources are prior to human employment and use and to economic
> > production. The human community uses nature as a source of raw materials
> > and a sink for the holding and/or absorbing and breaking down waste and
> > byproducts of production.
> [...]
> > Nature supples an inelastic natural resource, human communities are the
> > demand only.
>
> Re-read this carefully, but substitute "iron ore."
>
> > The right to exclude other's [sic] from nature's benefits is a government
> > granted right and it has economic value. Ownership of iron ore is a
> > government-created legal right to the exclusive use of this ore in the
> > production of steel. Iron ore and other natural resources are prior to
> > human employment and use and to economic production. The human community
> > uses nature as a source of raw materials...
> [...]
> > Nature supples an inelastic natural resource, human communities are the
> > demand only.
> [...]
> > Therefore, a tax on steel production is not a tax, but an "iron ore rent."
> > A tax on automobiles is not a tax, but merely continued rent on the iron
> > ore, fuel oil, and other raw materials required to build them; the land
> > required for the factory; and the government's protection and enforcement
> > of these (Hegelian) "property" rights. A protective tariff on automobile
> > and raw material importation is not out of the question, either, since
> it
> > secures the value of domestic natural resources and property rights.
> > Q.E.D., in full accordance with Mr. Hillary's logic.
According to Mr Hillary's logic, a tax on automobile or steel production
is unacceptable, however a tax on the extraction of iron ore *might* be
permisable. After it has left the pit, taxation must be finished. How
one might tax any economic rents of iron ore I don't know. I know that
middle eastern governments manage to tax oil extraction (or profit from
it) and operate without income taxation or sales taxes (Kuwait, United
Arab Emirates, Bahrain etc.). I know that the supply of these
extractable natural resources is not inelastic. The 'proven reserves' of
these resources expands by two means: 1. new discoveries and 2.
increases in the price of the extracted material making previously
uneconomic reserves viable to extract ('proven reserves' being those
reserves that are proven to both exist and be viable for extraction).
One approach would be to auction mining licences for specific extraction
sites. Economic theory predicts that the price of such extractibles
should increase by the interest rate each year, however this is too
simplistic to describe reality, where prices tend to decline in the long
run. Regardless, i do not advocate, and neither does my logic, that any
taxation exist after the extraction.
>
> Now try it with: Water, *gold*, silicon, coal, oil, copper, and every other
> "natural resource" that you can think of. And realize that, since one of
> the government's proclaimed duties is to protect my own person -- the most
> sacred and valued piece of my property! -- then why can it not tax *me*
> as well, and all the labor that I do?
>
> Do you think that that is justified? Or has this argument, when fully extended
> to its logical conclusion, just turned into attempt to undermine the very
> concept of "property?"
Government should only become involved when there is a clear net benefit
in doing so, and in the case of extractible natural resources I am not
sure that government involvement would provide a clear net benefit, or
how it would. Its not a government duty to attempt to collect all
natural resource rents, and government should never attempt to collect
revenue from natural resource rents if it does not provide a clear net
benefit. Imposing land value tax *helps* privatise the earnings of
labour and protect property rights, by providing a source of government
revenue derived solely from the ground rent of land, and the land value
tax constitutes a large and clear net benefit in the land market, not a
distortion.
>
> > [...] Thus the human community is the source of ground rent. [...]
>
> I am not a part of the "human community" beyond the extent to which I *choose*
> to participate!
that's good. we all all, as individuals, contribute somewhat to the
demand for land.
>
> If I want to retreat back onto ***my*** land and abstain from human society,
> then that is my *right* -- a right prior to the existence of government,
> indeed, one form of the primary right upon which the existence of government
> is predicated. And nobody can charge me "rent" for that right without being
> a thief.
>
> In other words: Not on -> ***MY*** <- land!
>
> I *own* it.
>
> One does not pay rent on things that he *owns.*
you are assuming that land titles are property rights of the same moral
and legal character as property rights to, for example, a computer. A
computer is a produced good you have acquired by freely trading with
other individuals. A land title is a government issued right to exclude
others from a particluar section of natural resources. You are begging
the question, assuming what you are trying to prove.
>
> I avoid politics nowadays, since it has proven itself by and large to be
> a useless pursuit. Indeed, I could pour the next six hours or so into building
> a full rebuttal for Mr. Hillary; but what's the point? I'll sit on the
> sidelines, and *live free* as I always do.
>
> -- Some sort-of-anonymous person out on the Big Big Internet
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> "A well-educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free State,
> the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
I try and avoid politics also, just study a little policy and economics
for interest.
David Hillary
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
