LTV

[anti-theist]

However you believe the Earth came about...land didn't really require any human labor to get here. But people buy it, so doesn't it have value?

[Jazzratt]

Privately owned land is farcical in the extreme.

[RGacky3]

If no one built it, no one has the rights to it. I personally believe in a God, and that if the earch came about through God no man has a right to claim ownership on any land. You can't buy the land, who are you going to buy it from? Generally from some one who took it either by force (almost all of the case), or someone who has worked it and assumed ownership (very very few times, and generally those people have had it forcibly taken from them).

When you talk about ANYTHING having 'Value' you run into the complication of what constitutes 'Value', thats a philisophical question.

[An archist]

How can you own the earth? It's like owning the air (only less extreme) people need land to live on, by privatizing it, you're decreasing the chances of survival for those worse-off.

[JazzRemington]

Certain things can have use-values without being products of human labor, I think. But one must remember that land is completely useless unless some sort of labor is applied to it, either in the form of growing food or digging a well or something.

[Faceless]

Marx talks about it quite a lot, and I advise you read capital so as to understand the concept. Reading it from the horse's mouth is way better than silly FAQ's

It is called "rent". No value is created in buying and selling land, however, because a person who owns it has a complete monopoly over it (you can't just "make" land) then they can extract a monopoly rent from the person they buy and sell it from. Effectively the capitalist is often in conflict with the big land owners over how they share out the surplus value. What rent "is" with respect to the Labour Theory of Value, is just a portion of the surplus value which the landowner parasitically squeezes from the capitalist. The total of surplus value is composed of profit, interest and rent. Of course, it was the genius of Marx that he could recognise this and did not confuse surplus value with profit, rent or interest.

[wtfm8lol]

How can you own the earth?

Fairly easily. You get a piece of paper that says you own a certain plot of land and register it with your city government and then pay them a tax every year to both ensure that you remain the owner of that land and to pay for some community crap.


by privatizing it, you're decreasing the chances of survival for those worse-off.

Hardly. You're decreasing the chances that someone is going to trash the land.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 24, 2007 11:51 am
How can you own the earth? It's like owning the air (only less extreme) people need land to live on, by privatizing it, you're decreasing the chances of survival for those worse-off.
marginally perhaps, in most industrialized countries homelessness has little to do with lack of affordable housing.

[Dewolfemann]

Right its rent.

Land, isn't a commodity, (in the sense of product of labour, produced for exchange)

Marxism has a theory regarding land prices and rent, but thats separate from the labour theory of value.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 07:06 am
Privately owned land is farcical in the extreme.
perhaps a poor choice of words, but what the hell are you talking about? oh, and i challenge you to respond without using the word '****'.

[colorlessman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 06:28 pm
Certain things can have use-values without being products of human labor, I think. But one must remember that land is completely useless unless some sort of labor is applied to it, either in the form of growing food or digging a well or something.
How is land useless without human labour?

[JazzRemington]

Well, land by itself is useless, unless something is built on it, such as a building or what have you, or if it's used to grow crops, like I said.

Think of this: if a hypothetical piece of land is not fertile enough to grow things on, is not hospitable enough to build homes or buildings on, and not have any minerals or natural resources, would it be useful?

[Cryotank Screams]

Fairly easily. You get a piece of paper that says you own a certain plot of land and register it with your city government and then pay them a tax every year to both ensure that you remain the owner of that land and to pay for some community crap.

I fail to see how a scrap of paper means you trulyown this specific section of land, and in a couple years, when you die, and say an invasion happens, and a new country controls it, does that make it still your land? What does property and land ownership really mean in the long run? Is it not just some metaphysical delusion?

I mean that is like someone taking construction paper, and a crayon, and writing, "I own all of the world," and then tries to claim ownership, in other words, just because you say you own it, doesn't mean you deserve it, nor does it mean you own it, and you’re not really understanding the point trying to be made here.

The only thing the document really says is that you are using the land and area in question, assuming you are using it.


Hardly. You're decreasing the chances that someone is going to trash the land.

You do realize that business owners, land owners, and the bourgeoisie and state, trash the land more so than anyone else, and that they build cities, use energy, and such, in a hazardous and inefficient way don't you?

[La Comédie Noire]

How is land useless without human labour?

I think he means "useless" as in useless to human society.

[ShakeZula06]

How can you own the earth?
Natural rights. If you improve it and put work into it, you have a right to it. Privatization also solves the tradgedy of the commons.

[ShakeZula06]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:37 pm

How can you own the earth?

Fairly easily. You get a piece of paper that says you own a certain plot of land and register it with your city government and then pay them a tax every year to both ensure that you remain the owner of that land and to pay for some community crap.
Without invoking might makes right, why does this mean you own it?

[encephalon]

Natural rights. If you improve it and put work into it, you have a right to it. Privatization also solves the tradgedy of the commons.

Then you should probably start paying me. I'm pretty sure one of my ancestors died and helped fertilize your land. Plus, whoever planted the trees that were used to build your house (or, more likely, whoever planted the trees that acted as fertilizers of the trees that were cut down for your house; or, just create a tree fund and let them all split it equally). Plus, worms. Plus, erosion. And stars. Oh! Volcanos, too. They all expended massive amounts of energy to make what you own. Oh, and of course the indigenous people. And anyone else that lived on the same continent as you since the beginning of human history.



Ohhhh, property. It's amazing.

[Hate Is Art]

A very good quote from Rousseau on land from Discourse on the Origins of Inequality


The first person, who, having inclose a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This Is Mine . . . From how many crimes, battles and murders, from how many horrors . . . would not that man have saved mankind, . . . pulled up the stakes . . . crying out to his fellows, "Beware . . . you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, that the earth itself belongs to nobody"

The concept of private land is ridiculous.

[Tungsten]

encephalon

Then you should probably start paying me. I'm pretty sure one of my ancestors died and helped fertilize your land.
Why should you pick up a cheque for something your ancestors did? I thought that was something communists were opposed to.

Plus, whoever planted the trees that were used to build your house (or, more likely, whoever planted the trees that acted as fertilizers of the trees that were cut down for your house; or, just create a tree fund and let them all split it equally). Plus, worms. Plus, erosion. And stars. Oh! Volcanos, too. They all expended massive amounts of energy to make what you own.
Okay, we'll write a cheque out to god instead. Oh wait, he doesn't exist. Shucks...

Ohhhh, property. It's amazing.
It's useful when it helps to prevents people from robbing others.
Digital Nirvana

The first person, who, having inclose a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This Is Mine . . . From how many crimes, battles and murders, from how many horrors . . . would not that man have saved mankind, . . . pulled up the stakes . . . crying out to his fellows, "Beware . . . you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, that the earth itself belongs to nobody"
But then they realised that the only ones to benefit from a free-for-all are those who have contributed fuck all. Aspiring to be a human doormat isn't a very impressive ideology.

[encephalon]

Why should you pick up a cheque for something your ancestors did? I thought that was something communists were opposed to.

Silly. Not when you are paying me.


Okay, we'll write a cheque out to god instead. Oh wait, he doesn't exist. Shucks...

Nor does property in any objective manner, but people codify their entire world around it nonetheless.

[Faceless]

I feel I should be aiming my comments at the Restricted kids with nothing bright to say, but I think there is also some confusion amongst the other members who I might have a little more respect for.

JazzRemington:

Think of this: if a hypothetical piece of land is not fertile enough to grow things on, is not hospitable enough to build homes or buildings on, and not have any minerals or natural resources, would it be useful?

That is a very "hypothetical" piece of land. To quote Marx


The use values, coat, linen, &c., i.e., the bodies of commodities, are combinations of two elements – matter and labour. If we take away the useful labour expended upon them, a material substratum is always left, which is furnished by Nature without the help of man. The latter can work only as Nature does, that is by changing the form of matter.[13] Nay more, in this work of changing the form he is constantly helped by natural forces. We see, then, that labour is not the only source of material wealth, of use values produced by labour. As William Petty puts it, labour is its father and the earth its mother.


Even the most uncultivated land is useful. To an animal incapable of Labour, the land as found from nature provides the water from the river, the berries and the shrubs. To primitive men the same was also true and to a much lesser extent nature still provides me with my needs in a way unchannelled by Labour; with the air I breathe, and the warmth of the Sun. Of course this does not make these natural things exchange values as we would know them.

Digital Nirvana:

The concept of private land is ridiculous.
Private ownership of land is a fact to everyone else. If it was so ridiculous, Marx and Engels would not have spent so much time analysing it. Of course we would object to private ownership of land, but that is not enough. We have to understand the mode of production that exists now and the very real relationships which people have with eachother and with the means of production if we want to come at all close to revolutionising these relations. Unfortunately, Rousseau was not the greatest authority on this.

Cryotank Screams:

I fail to see how a scrap of paper means you trulyown this specific section of land, and in a couple years, when you die, and say an invasion happens, and a new country controls it, does that make it still your land? What does property and land ownership really mean in the long run? Is it not just some metaphysical delusion?

I mean that is like someone taking construction paper, and a crayon, and writing, "I own all of the world," and then tries to claim ownership, in other words, just because you say you own it, doesn't mean you deserve it, nor does it mean you own it, and you’re not really understanding the point trying to be made here.

What does it mean then to truly own something? The fact is that the piece of paper itself is irrelevant, and what is important is the recognition that this person receives from the rest of society and also from the state; that armed body of men who have the power to enforce the will of a certain class and its "property"; that this land is "theirs".

You are right to suggest that to elevate this relationship above all historic movements is a metaphysical delusion, however that does not mean that the inverse of this belief as you expressed it is any less metaphysical. However transient it may be, this land has truly come under some "ownership". The ownership is real because it refers to the very real relationships which exist between society and the owner; nothing more or less. That these old relations can be swept away and new ones can come in to place is true and is the crux of historical materialism.

[Tungsten]

Silly. Not when you are paying me.
I see now, it's only wrong it everyone else does it. You're a socialist of the champagne variety.

[wtfm8lol]

Without invoking might makes right, why does this mean you own it?

might makes right is the only reason i can think of

[encephalon]

I see now, it's only wrong it everyone else does it. You're a socialist of the champagne variety.

Please don't make yourself look worse than I already think of you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

[Cryotank Screams]

What does it mean then to truly own something?

I don't believe people really own anything at all, and infact had the phrase "property is thievery," under my avatar at one point in time, and if you are familiar with Anarchist-Communist philosophy, my view on ownership of property, and commodity would be even more clear.


You are right to suggest that to elevate this relationship above all historic movements is a metaphysical delusion, however that does not mean that the inverse of this belief as you expressed it is any less metaphysical.

In what capacity, are my feelings and views on property or land ownership metaphysical? Regardless of any relationship, or human animal metaphysics, it still does not take away from the fact, that at center, ownership in any capacity is a vain phantom, justified by the foolish, and saying that ownership has existed in any sense, do to relationships and external forces is as said before a vain phantom, because they don’t own it, they are just using it, and protecting said user-ship by brute force, whether by themselves, or relating forces; otherwise, I say we agree with each other.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:37 pm

How can you own the earth?

Fairly easily. You get a piece of paper that says you own a certain plot of land and register it with your city government and then pay them a tax every year to both ensure that you remain the owner of that land and to pay for some community crap.
Since when does the city government have rights to any land? And if so, how did they get them? Why do they have them? What gives them the right to have them?

[wtfm8lol]

Since when does the city government have rights to any land? And if so, how did they get them? Why do they have them? What gives them the right to have them?

Since the city in question was established, I would assume. I would guess they got them through some sort of deal with the state government. They have them because they wanted them. The military of the country they belong to gives them the right; nothing else.

[bezdomni]

Land's value exists in its ability to be built on or cultivated.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by anti-[email protected] 24, 2007 06:05 am
However you believe the Earth came about...land didn't really require any human labor to get here. But people buy it, so doesn't it have value?
I believe the labour theory of value only applies to goods with which are reproducible and have an elastic supply,hence in our society where most land is owned,particularly the most useful and is not freely available its value will deviate from its labour input like a work of art or fine wine does.
Also it is worth noting as Franz Oppenheimer pointed out,that even today in the heart of Europe,nothing like all the land is occupied and that most land has become owned not by any kind of Lockean or similiar labour property rights but through gov't preempty of the land and gifting or selling it to people.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by RGacky3+January 26, 2007 12:53 am--> (RGacky3 @ January 26, 2007 12:53 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 08:37 pm

How can you own the earth?

Fairly easily. You get a piece of paper that says you own a certain plot of land and register it with your city government and then pay them a tax every year to both ensure that you remain the owner of that land and to pay for some community crap.
Since when does the city government have rights to any land? And if so, how did they get them? Why do they have them? What gives them the right to have them? [/b]
The law.

[t_wolves_fan]

Individual rights are secured through property rights. If the government cannot arbitrarily commandeer what you own for its own purposes, then it has to respect you as a sovereign person in order to use that property or place restrictions on it. For instance, in the United States our Constitution says that the government cannot simply inform you that a soldier will be living in your home, and it also says that it cannot take what you own without due process - the due process being created and implemented through citizen involvement.

Someone has to explain to me how this protection of the individual as a sovereign is considered in socialism or communism, because it appears that the mob could instantly and for any reason simply inform you that what you had is now theirs.