From: "Kevin Carson" <kevin_carson-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: "Squatters Rights?
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 14:32:36 +0000


Good point.  I agree with Tucker that ending absentee landlord control of 
access to land would eliminate the worst faults of the system.  But even in 
an occupancy-and-use system, there would still be site advantages, 
differences in fertility, etc.  Unlike the Geoists, I consider the evils of 
landlord rent to be a lot worse than economic rent, and don't think the 
evils of the latter are anywhere near as bad as their proposed remedies.  In 
much the same way, even when labor gets its full product, some people will 
get unfairly high returns on their labor because of innate aptitudes which 
cost them no effort to acquire.  But I don't want to make life "fair"--that 
would require a lot more regimentation and control than I care for.  I just 
want to eliminate the role of coercion in *deliberately* making it unfair on 
behalf of a particular class.


>From: Sandi and Scott Spaeth <vespass-AT-swbell.net>
>
>>A piece of property is only more valuable than another because of the 
>>state granted owner ability to exclude others.
>
>
>But I don't believe this.  The desirability of property is  based on 
>natural geographical and climactical features (excluding the perversion of 
>cities of course).  You don't need a state to tell you that a fertile and 
>temperate valley is preferable to a desert when it comes to the old 
>homestead.
>
>cheers,
>scott




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com