General

Re: Commentary Thread on the Manorialism Debate between Giles and Marko

Juan — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:34:13 GMT

I'm not sure what you mean since in your language 'land owner' doesn't mean land owner, as illustrated by your not regarding people who own land in a city as land owners.

Re: Commentary Thread on the Manorialism Debate between Giles and Marko

Stranger — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:05:22 GMT

Juan:
What Stranger is trying to get at is that if he just were able to own the roads then he could rule the world...

I would have no leverage on the land owners.

Re: Commentary Thread on the Manorialism Debate between Giles and Marko

Juan — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:35:19 GMT

What Stranger is trying to get at is that if he just were able to own the roads then he could rule the world...

Re: Commentary Thread on the Manorialism Debate between Giles and Marko

Stranger — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:26:04 GMT

Maxliberty:
What is this nonsense. Land ownership is not related to what use the land is for. You either own something or you don't. The question is land ownership not economic use of the land.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Urban homeowners do not own land because they do not have the rights that accompany land ownership.

Re: Commentary Thread on the Manorialism Debate between Giles and Marko

Maxliberty — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:56:36 GMT

Stranger:

There is no land ownership in the city because land is not an economic production unit for homeowners. You are not allowed to make a living from that land because of its proximity and zoning. It is impossible to make a living in the city without the road, which is the entire purpose of urban life. The house is just a place to stay, but economic life comes from the road and that is shared between multiple tenants.

What is this nonsense. Land ownership is not related to what use the land is for. You either own something or you don't. The question is land ownership not economic use of the land. It is like saying nobody can own a car unless you are using it to produce some tangible article, ludicrous.

Re: Commentary Thread on the Manorialism Debate between Giles and Marko

Stranger — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:45:45 GMT

Maxliberty:
You need to get out more. America is a very big place and lots of people own land. Most of America is not composed of urban areas. Clearly your definition of owning land and my definition is different. If you own land in the city it still counts as land.

According to the census 70% of the population lives in a city of 50,000 or more, and that would likely increase if you counted smaller cities.

There is no land ownership in the city because land is not an economic production unit for homeowners. You are not allowed to make a living from that land because of its proximity and zoning. It is impossible to make a living in the city without the road, which is the entire purpose of urban life. The house is just a place to stay, but economic life comes from the road and that is shared between multiple tenants.

Maxliberty:

If land is in private hands then "could" own land is a matter of the market and "should" own land is best determined by the market and not your implied central planning.

That's true and that is why there are very few land owners in America or anywhere.

Re: Commentary Thread on the Manorialism Debate between Giles and Marko

Maxliberty — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:22:51 GMT

Stranger:

Land in Europe was almost exclusively in private ownership up to the French revolution. That didn't mean that everyone could and should be a land owner.

If land is in private hands then "could" own land is a matter of the market and "should" own land is best determined by the market and not your implied central planning.

Stranger:

If we throw out the confusion that owning an urban plot is land ownership, there remains only very few land owners even in America. Land has been consolidated into much more productive farming estates, and most people have no interest in being land owners. They prefer the higher productivity of urban life.

You need to get out more. America is a very big place and lots of people own land. Most of America is not composed of urban areas. Clearly your definition of owning land and my definition is different. If you own land in the city it still counts as land.

Re: Commentary Thread on the Manorialism Debate between Giles and Marko

Juan — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:28:36 GMT

Land in Europe was almost exclusively in private ownership up to the French revolution.

Hard to imagine a more vague or inaccurate claim than that. In france for instance a lot of land was owned by the government, that is : the monarchy, the catholic theocracy and the oligarchical 'nobility'. All these people were 'the public sector' and owned, or rather usurped land.

Re: Commentary Thread on the Manorialism Debate between Giles and Marko

Stranger — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:58:49 GMT

Maxliberty:

False, one could make a reasonable case that the entire human history is in large part a search and struggle for individual land ownership. The notion that America is unique in desire for individual land ownership is ridiculous.

Land in Europe was almost exclusively in private ownership up to the French revolution. That didn't mean that everyone could and should be a land owner.

If we throw out the confusion that owning an urban plot is land ownership, there remains only very few land owners even in America. Land has been consolidated into much more productive farming estates, and most people have no interest in being land owners. They prefer the higher productivity of urban life.

Re: Commentary Thread on the Manorialism Debate between Giles and Marko

Maxliberty — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:50:48 GMT

Stranger:

The historical record is that people own buildings but rent land. The American experience has obfuscated this because government has pursued an egalitarian land distribution policy to promote small land holdings and the government has acted as a landlord collecting rents (property taxes).

False, one could make a reasonable case that the entire human history is in large part a search and struggle for individual land ownership. The notion that America is unique in desire for individual land ownership is ridiculous.

Re: Commentary Thread on the Manorialism Debate between Giles and Marko

Maxliberty — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:36:57 GMT

krazy kaju:
Saying that in the past 10,000 years people have preferred to own over rent doesn't mean much. All that it means is that in the past 10,000 years something gave the incentive to people to own. It doesn't mean that in the next 10,000 years people will own or that people will want to own in an anarchist society.

Yes, in the study of human bahavior actually looking at human behavior in the present and the past is a complete waste of time. Much better to do what you are attempting and just blindly extrapolate from nothing.

If human behavior can be predicted then human behavior in similar or identical situations to the predictions is completely relevant. Giles proposal has had 10,000 years of testing and it has failed. It is not a theoretical discussion.

Re: Commentary Thread on the Manorialism Debate between Giles and Marko

kiba — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:24:25 GMT

Spideynw:

krazy kaju:
Looking at the historical record does no good. We can roughly estimate that because people won't want to pay rent if they can instead pay once for their own land UNLESS the land entrepreneur is able to provide special services that would make this kind of arrangement desirable.

The fact of the matter is, renting is generally preferable for the short term, and buying is generally preferrable for the long term. To think that a majority of the population would want to rent for the long term is laughable. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that such is the case, not for any property one can buy, whether it is land, a home, a car, or even furniture.

AFAIK, Romans love and want to own land. That's evidence in your favor, Spideynw.

Re: Commentary Thread on the Manorialism Debate between Giles and Marko

Stranger — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:57:58 GMT

krazy kaju:

If we look at the way that new land is homesteaded, it is usually homesteaded by separate individuals, not by one individual who then rents it out to others. It doesn't make sense for individuals to rent if they can instead own land. Taking this into account, new land would most likely be organized via homeowner associations when it is settled.

That doesn't make an iota of sense. You went from a world of independent land owners, which would merge and subdivide their properties to create an efficient structure of indepedent land ownership, to a world of a homeowner association with absolutely no process where land ownership is substituted for home ownership.

Moreover, most land today is owned by separate individuals, and I doubt that they'd sell their land and housing to a "land entrepreneur" when they could instead capture externalities by using homeowner associations - many of which already exist.

Since you don't seem to have any idea where homeowner associations originate, here is how today's homeowner associations exist. From a starting point of individual land ownership, the value of the land as a single enterprise falls below the value of the land for urbanization. A private developer buys the land in order to destroy the farm or whatever pastoral industry there is on it and instead subdivide it into urban plots. When the government services were able to take over the management of the future neighborhood, the developers did not bother with creating an association. The streets and common structures instead went into public ownership while the developer sold the plots with or without buildings on them. However because government has become unreliable to protect the value of the neighborhood, developers are drafting up homeowner associations in which those who purchase lots are bound by contract to belong to. In fact because the management of the association is allocated based on the number of building lots, and those remain the property of the developer until the project has been completed, the HOA is nothing more than an arm of the developer until all lots have been sold.

How is that different from "manoralism" or "enterprise-community"?

Re: Commentary Thread on the Manorialism Debate between Giles and Marko

krazy kaju — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:45:13 GMT

Stranger:
krazy kaju:
All in all, I still doubt that such a system of land arrangement would become dominant. I still think that the externalities that Giles mentions could be internalized by individual home owners in different ways, like homeowner associations buying land to create a park.

What you are arguing for is that cooperative ownership of an enterprise is more efficient than capitalistic ownership of an enterprise.

The results for land size are the same. Home owners pooling together to own land (makes no sense structurally since the land comes before the homes, but let's assume they do it anyway) makes them into a cooperative land estate that rents land to the home owners. It's no longer individual ownership.

Whether or not it's a manor (which I find to be a silly term for capitalist enterprise) or a cooperative, the land market operates at a minimal scale. Competition between capitalist ownership or cooperative ownership of land will produce the best outcomes.

If we look at the way that new land is homesteaded, it is usually homesteaded by separate individuals, not by one individual who then rents it out to others. It doesn't make sense for individuals to rent if they can instead own land. Taking this into account, new land would most likely be organized via homeowner associations when it is settled. Moreover, most land today is owned by separate individuals, and I doubt that they'd sell their land and housing to a "land entrepreneur" when they could instead capture externalities by using homeowner associations - many of which already exist.

Re: Commentary Thread on the Manorialism Debate between Giles and Marko

Stranger — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:38:27 GMT

Maxliberty:

What the historical record tells us is that in 10,000 years of human history people have preferred to own rather than rent. Why will that suddenly change? Examining history provides lots of examples for the type of manorial society Giles envisions to be created and yet in these times people preferred to own rather than rent. When analyzing human behaviour to ignore what human behaviour has typically occurred and is occurring right now is idiotic.

The historical record is that people own buildings but rent land. The American experience has obfuscated this because government has pursued an egalitarian land distribution policy to promote small land holdings and the government has acted as a landlord collecting rents (property taxes).