“if you turn $10 worth of raw materials into a tool worth $1000, you can keep the extra $990 of value. But it's consistent with this to argue that [you] first buy or rent the $10 worth of raw materials [from everyone else, perhaps in the agent of the government], in order to possess (and, optionally, transform) them, ra…
“if you turn $10 worth of raw materials into a tool worth $1000, you can keep the extra $990 of value. But it's consistent with this to argue that [you] first buy or rent the $10 worth of raw materials [from everyone else, perhaps in the agent of the government], in order to possess (and, optionally, transform) them, rather than let you take them for free on account of being the firstcomer. And if you've paid $10 for the raw materials, you do fully own whatever you turn them into. Now, some natural resources are so abundant that their market value is 0"
If so, where is the discussion of how one might justifiably appropriate something initially unowned? One cannot rent or buy something that is unowned. If it is to be rented or bought, this involves a transaction between the owner and the renter or buyer. How did the owner acquire it, if it truly was unowned previously?
"One cannot rent or buy something that is unowned"—yes, that is a fair point, for exactly the reason you say, that the resources are initially unowned. And so that bit of the passage is not as well expressed as it should be. It should be: "you first give $10 for the raw materials to others as compensation to them for taking the materials, in order to process ...". You give others the money, not because you are buying the materials from them (since they do not own them), but as compensation for your excluding others from the materials (since, initially, you don't own them either). That should make it clearer.
This is just a use of the concept of ownership without using the word. Swapping the definition for the word doesn’t change anything.
We shouldn't argue about names; we are arguing about exclusion, who can do it justly, and under what circumstances compensation is owed (and to whom) for use without permission. If one must pay compensation to some person for the use of a resource, there should be a reason, not just a command.
Georgist norms, if they are just, should be the conclusion of an argument about justice, not the premises. Is the idea that existing norms are unjust, so everyone must submit to the innovation to serve justice? That is a hard sell. Or does the innovation have some beneficial qualities, and so while we are not obligated to do so, we might be persuaded to switch? Or something else?
Is this the quote?
“if you turn $10 worth of raw materials into a tool worth $1000, you can keep the extra $990 of value. But it's consistent with this to argue that [you] first buy or rent the $10 worth of raw materials [from everyone else, perhaps in the agent of the government], in order to possess (and, optionally, transform) them, rather than let you take them for free on account of being the firstcomer. And if you've paid $10 for the raw materials, you do fully own whatever you turn them into. Now, some natural resources are so abundant that their market value is 0"
If so, where is the discussion of how one might justifiably appropriate something initially unowned? One cannot rent or buy something that is unowned. If it is to be rented or bought, this involves a transaction between the owner and the renter or buyer. How did the owner acquire it, if it truly was unowned previously?
"One cannot rent or buy something that is unowned"—yes, that is a fair point, for exactly the reason you say, that the resources are initially unowned. And so that bit of the passage is not as well expressed as it should be. It should be: "you first give $10 for the raw materials to others as compensation to them for taking the materials, in order to process ...". You give others the money, not because you are buying the materials from them (since they do not own them), but as compensation for your excluding others from the materials (since, initially, you don't own them either). That should make it clearer.
This is just a use of the concept of ownership without using the word. Swapping the definition for the word doesn’t change anything.
We shouldn't argue about names; we are arguing about exclusion, who can do it justly, and under what circumstances compensation is owed (and to whom) for use without permission. If one must pay compensation to some person for the use of a resource, there should be a reason, not just a command.
Georgist norms, if they are just, should be the conclusion of an argument about justice, not the premises. Is the idea that existing norms are unjust, so everyone must submit to the innovation to serve justice? That is a hard sell. Or does the innovation have some beneficial qualities, and so while we are not obligated to do so, we might be persuaded to switch? Or something else?