This is why I don’t buy the whole “nothing will get done without IP” line. Any time I come up with something really creative, I am far more concerned that it come to fruition than being compensated for it. Real genius wants to get out, and won’t let a little thing like monetary compensation stand in its way. If anything, IP just results in a proliferation of “noise” making it hard to find the “signal”.

YES! People who say that without IP monopoly there isn’t enough “profit incentive” to create, appear not to understand that true creatives create out of an inner drive and the joy they derive from doing it.

IP rewards mediocrity more than the lack of it would dissuade excellence, since the real inventors, innovators and artists would do what they do in most cases even without any pay!

Some things cannot be reduced to the drive for more money.

That’s what the management at the sales job that I left last year simply did not understand. They thought everyone just wanted to be a sales drone with no life except making money, money, and more money. I told them, in so many words, that that’s not my idea of a life.

People are being taxed already. Given that, from the perspective of long term capital growth, a land tax is better than a VAT which is better than a general income tax which is better than taxing capital gains which is better than taxing dividends.

Or as Milton Friedman memorably put it, property tax is the “least worst tax” economically speaking.

And the land-only tax (or user fee) championed by Henry George actualy is beneficial, in part due to its market-freeing action. Speculation applied to land — a unique, inelastically supplied factor of production — gums up the wheels of the market. It holds land non-productively off the market and jacks up prices. Land tax, uniquely, removes the profit from speculation.

Untax improvements, thereby converting the property tax to a pure land tax (more accurately, a user fee). Remove all the other taxes on production and trade, and what do you begin to have? An actual free market. Now we’re talkin’!

“Was B also satisfied for his food and shelter needs?” He decided to forgo shelter and subsisted on bananas during his homesteading trek.

“What he did was to waste resources – his time – that he could have used to also garner food and shelter.” No, he was what the Tannehills call “ambitious, quick and intelligent enough to acquire the property before anyone else”.

“The legitimacy stems from two prerequisites: One, the land is not claimed by anyone else who can demonstrate ownership, and two, demonstrate that the homesteader used his labor to modify the land.”
The article goes into detail about how “modifying the land” is not a requisite. Just bordering. As much as you can grab through the virtues of intelligence, quickness and ambitiousness.

“If Bob and Alex agreed on something, it would be logical to assume Charlie could also make an arrangement with both Bob and Alex.”
They didn’t agree to splitting the island, half each, after Bob homesteaded it. That was an alternate scenario, where their conflict was resolved (maybe they both raced to homestead before worrying about shelter). It was meant to show that the base issue still isn’t resolved, since a new conflict arises when a new arrival appears.

You said: “How do you know he just homesteaded the mountain? How do you know it did not belong to him before he fenced it? What if he fenced it because he was seeing a trespasser climb his mountain without his permission?”
The article went on and on about fencing being the way to acquire property title to a portion of land. By which novel mechanism do you propose that he acquired the mountain as property before even fencing it? Also, way to miss the point of the thought exercise.

You also said: “You are assuming that scarcity is created when people homestead. You have it exactly backwards – resources are homesteaded because they ARE scarce.”
I already referred to an island example that I posited higher in this thread. Going back to it, we can see that fresh water sources are indeed scarce on the island. However, they provide more than enough water to satisfy the needs of our stranded islanders. By homesteading most of the island, Bob can create an artificial scarcity of drinking water for Alex. I don’t see how you can still refer to that as a free market.
I’m curious, how do you see the island scenario play out? I would imagine that Alex would start by paying for drinking water by building a shelter for Bob. Then, he would exchange caught fish for drinking water. Bob would soon realize that he wouldn’t even need to go pick fruits. He can simply increase the price of water, so that Alex has to bring him more fruit and more fish and more everything. In fact, he can set the price of water so high that Alex needs to go into debt to afford paying for his water. After a while, Alex would get sick of working to support Bob and decide to not pay for water but simply go get his own, even trespassing on Bob’s land. Bob would then “defend his property” and they would become locked in a fight to the death. As you see, conflict is inevitable. And you still ask what the problem is?

Lastly, you said: “what’s “disproportionate”? Compared to what? According to whom?”
It would be disproportionate compared to the amount of land that same person would be able to hold under a true free market system.

Let me posit this scenario: Two people are shipwrecked on a desert island. They wake up at the same time. Person A (let’s say Alex) goes to rescue some water bottles from the ship, catch some fish and build a shelter. Person B (let’s say Bob) runs around the island planting signposts from time to time. They meet again after 3 days. Alex, having satisfied his immediate want for sustenance and shelter, wants to go see what other opportunities the island might offer to him.
Bob says that he can’t do that, for he would be trespassing on his property. As per the article, Bob was “ambitious, quick and intelligent enough to acquire the property before anyone else”.
Why would Alex agree that “bordering” is an acceptable way of acquiring property?

Interesting that you would describe a situation were person A satisfies his needs for shelter and food while B was just walking around the island pushing signposts into the ground. Was B also satisfied for his food and shelter needs?

One of the easiest traps the uninitiated in economics falls always is assuming people value the same things the same way in every situation. In this case you posit a scenario where A just has to wait until B starves to death so that A can resume his visits around the island. Your mistake is thinking that facing such a dire situation, Person B would still find it more profitable to carve the island up into territories, FIRST, before his immidiate physiological needs are met (i.e. food, water and shelter.)

Bob, meanwhile, acquired capital not by savings, but by defining his actions as “acquisition of capital” and, through circular reasoning, decreeing the rest of the island as his property (since he performed on it the act that “acquires property”).

He did nothing of the sort. What he did was to waste resources – his time – that he could have used to also garner food and shelter.

The Tannehills’ arbiters rule on disputes in bordering, but the article did not establish that bordering is a legitimate way of procuring property, never mind establishing the legitimacy of land property.

The legitimacy stems from two prerequisites: One, the land is not claimed by anyone else who can demonstrate ownership, and two, demonstrate that the homesteader used his labor to modify the land. Saying “I claim this land in my name” and then going away would not constitute homesteading, otherwise the Moon would be American territory.

After all, even if Bob and Alex agree amongst themselves to split the island and own half each, what happens when Charlie washes ashore a week later? Is he destined to be their slave? Or ship out?

If Bob and Alex agreed on something, it would be logical to assume Charlie could also make an arrangement with both Bob and Alex.

Land property diminishes the freedom to act of others. In that sense, it is theft.
Today, I am free to climb that mountain I see in the distance. When I get there in 3 weeks, I realize you got there 2 days before me and fenced it off. I’m no longer free to climb it. Why should I then accept that bordering is a valid way of acquiring land property?

How do you know he just homesteaded the mountain? How do you know it did not belong to him before he fenced it? What if he fenced it because he was seeing a trespasser climb his mountain without his permission?

Don’t delude yourselves. Land property can and often is used as a form of control, by creating artificial scarcity. [...] When the goal is to control through created scarcity, the hand-waving, theoretical solution of “other men, operating within the framework of the free market, [...] bid it away from him and put it to work producing wealth” no longer applies.

You are assuming that scarcity is created when people homestead. You have it exactly backwards – resources are homesteaded because they ARE scarce.

Now, why do you conclude that holding private property stops the process of trade (i.e. free markets)?

Now, the facile solution would be to have a government collect the land tax.

That’s not a solution – what was the problem that the tax is purported to solve?

Since one person’s holding of a disproportionate amount of land creates conflict, where other’s would attempt to make use of that land, the owner has to buy protection for his land holdings.

You’re begging the question – what’s “disproportionate”? Compared to what? According to whom?

Now, the facile solution would be to have a government collect the land tax. While that tax would still be fairer than any other, I think a solution can (and would) arise in an anarchic system.
Since one person’s holding of a disproportionate amount of land creates conflict, where other’s would attempt to make use of that land, the owner has to buy protection for his land holdings. What if he were to pay off potential invaders (by paying into a fund set up independently), rather than beat them off? The price might be higher, because there would be more of them, so that would be a natural incentive for him to decrease his land possession. At the same time, the guards he would have employed are free to pursue more productive occupations. That means the society he sells the produce from the part of land he exploits to is richer, so he can get more in return.
The landowner would be compelled to adhere to this alternative if he were simply withdrawn the immunity of prosecution for causing bodily harm to a trespasser on this land (which would follow directly from this land not being property).
Furthermore, since this “tax” would be closely related to the number of “potential invaders”, it would rise in step with population density and their valuation of that particular area in an awesome example of supply and demand on the free market and would provide an actual, effective way to “bid it away from him and put it to work producing wealth.”

Inquisitor, your suggestion that I “get real” does not advance the debate others and I raised about the assumptions and assertions that form the basis of the present article. If you do not desire to engage in such a debate, perhaps silence on your part would be a more appropriate course of action.

Wealth tax is fair. definitely fairer than income tax. Most fair.. I don’t think so. Most people in a georgist world would have more or less worked for their wealth. So, it wouldn’t be fair to tax them extra and more importantly, less competitive in an international sense. When you tax wealth, it does leave your jurisdiction.

“So, what might be a correct policy for the situation we already exist in? People are being taxed already. Given that, from the perspective of long term capital growth, a land tax is better than a VAT which is better than a general income tax which is better than taxing capital gains which is better than taxing dividends. Admit it. A land tax keeps people honest about the amount of land that they really need. It does not penalise enterprise if the “mixing” rules are defined correctly. There is no scope for corruption if you go in for a self-assessment system. Isn’t that just better than the great complexity of income tax?”

If you are going to be taxed the fairest would be the one that would mimic the free market expenses regarding the basic government service (the protection of property), the closest.

And that would actually be a wealth tax, since the expense of “insuring” property would be proportional to the wealth that is being insured, or protected.

Of course in a free society the percentage of this wealth tax would be very small relative what is being paid today, but that is another matter.

Sea steading analogy doesn’t fit, because that is not really a natural outcome of homesteading but a force major situation brought about the current statist system. In a free society no one could homestead a big chunk of land and carve out pieces.

why? how can you possibly come to this utilitarian conclusion?

First of all, let us recognise that for better or worse, governments of the earth are sovereign over large parts of the earth. They are strong and can very effectively remove any opposition if they have the will.

Now, in this circumstance, to have a new market order, you will have to establish a seastead of some kind or a flotilla of “pirate” ships. If you have a seastead, how would you attract new talent? You are the sovereign over your ship. Will you sell parts of it out or will you give them on lease? The answer is of course subjective. It is totally upto you. If you were seeking to migrate into a seastead, what policies would you choose, what deals? That is also totally upto you.

So, in the situation where people are either creating new jurisdictions or shopping for new jurisdictions, georgism is just one of the flavours that can be offered in the market.

So, what might be a correct policy for the situation we already exist in? People are being taxed already. Given that, from the perspective of long term capital growth, a land tax is better than a VAT which is better than a general income tax which is better than taxing capital gains which is better than taxing dividends. Admit it. A land tax keeps people honest about the amount of land that they really need. It does not penalise enterprise if the “mixing” rules are defined correctly. There is no scope for corruption if you go in for a self-assessment system. Isn’t that just better than the great complexity of income tax?

In anarchotopia, you can work hard, save and buy land.

In your governmentopia, you can never own the land you buy, you must pay rent to government.

I conclude that you enjoy being the property of the government and would like the rest of us to share your fate.

actually it is you and not the IP opponents that are IP socialists. Because on one hand, you assert that immaterial goods are property, but only recognise ownership of certain types of them. With regards to the others, such as patents, you are an IP socialist.

Welcome Rob Russ. Don’t get irritated by the attacks of the IP socialists. They are very similar to you in regards to arbitrary assertions on what is property and what is not.

How is that ‘disturbing’? If you don’t own land in Anarchotopia then you’ll be renting land from a private landowner – i.e. you’re back to square one and you can’t (apparently) own anything else either.