That only makes sense if everything was always owned. If I can’t own it, why can “everybody”? When/how did they gain ownership so that their claim is better?
That only makes sense if everything was always owned. If I can’t own it, why can “everybody”? When/how did they gain ownership so that their claim is better?
The line of argument I am exploring holds that uncreated property starts out as a commons. Nobody owns it — has the right to exclude others — but everyone has an equal right to use it. When someone appropriates some of it he is violating that right by forcibly keeping other from using the land.
Yes, I understand. Perhaps you found some clever argument that defeats the idea even after stipulating one-sided assumptions. I am challenging the assumptions. I want to explore a broader question. If this seems like an unwelcome digression, I apologize.
Why is it interesting to simply assume a framework, as opposed to comparing rivals? The objection is that ordinary property excludes those who have rights under the commons assumption. Why can’t the opposition simply assume ordinary property rights, and object to Georgist taxation? For the argument to reach common ground, we have to find common premises. One side can’t just beg the question and declare checkmate.
Perhaps the answer is that’s Georgists find their assumptions very intuitive, and do not,feel a need to argue for them. They seem confused by the idea that this might be necessary to persuade someone with different intuitions.
If I make a spear, and you admit I made it, and make no claim to have owned the materials I used, how can you claim it as firewood or spear? If we take this dispute to arbitration, my ownership claim based on use is pretty weak. But a weak claim is better than no claim. Why should the arbitrator rule in favor of your taking the spear for firewood?
That only makes sense if everything was always owned. If I can’t own it, why can “everybody”? When/how did they gain ownership so that their claim is better?
The line of argument I am exploring holds that uncreated property starts out as a commons. Nobody owns it — has the right to exclude others — but everyone has an equal right to use it. When someone appropriates some of it he is violating that right by forcibly keeping other from using the land.
Yes, I understand. Perhaps you found some clever argument that defeats the idea even after stipulating one-sided assumptions. I am challenging the assumptions. I want to explore a broader question. If this seems like an unwelcome digression, I apologize.
Why is it interesting to simply assume a framework, as opposed to comparing rivals? The objection is that ordinary property excludes those who have rights under the commons assumption. Why can’t the opposition simply assume ordinary property rights, and object to Georgist taxation? For the argument to reach common ground, we have to find common premises. One side can’t just beg the question and declare checkmate.
Perhaps the answer is that’s Georgists find their assumptions very intuitive, and do not,feel a need to argue for them. They seem confused by the idea that this might be necessary to persuade someone with different intuitions.
If I make a spear, and you admit I made it, and make no claim to have owned the materials I used, how can you claim it as firewood or spear? If we take this dispute to arbitration, my ownership claim based on use is pretty weak. But a weak claim is better than no claim. Why should the arbitrator rule in favor of your taking the spear for firewood?