|
aliesheatell (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)
I have some questions: if the earth is divided up into parcels for private ownership and traded, won't some areas be of higher value than others? Who will determine this value, the unconscious market? Won't some areas consequently become more valuable or more worthwhile to be saved than others? Therefore if the market dictates it to be so won't some areas become dispensable? I'm not a hard core libertarian so the concept seems very novel to me. Am i interpreting it correctly?
ourearthhome (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)
It was pointed out over a century ago that the simple solution to the monopoly of the earth was to tax its value equal to its market rent on a yearly basis. The reason for this is that the value of land and natural resources is created by 100% the community and not by individual "owners" and since the community needs a source of revenue to pay for public services what better source of revenue than the value that we all create. Individuals can "own" the earth but we all own its value.
mrocker863 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)
higher demand*
mrocker863 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)
The reason is usually that those commodities are now in hire demand for reconstruction or maybe because the area affected by the disaster need them or maybe produced them before the disaster.
lumpfish99 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)
Why does the price of commodities go up after a disaster??? Please any help
neothomist1275 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)
Corporations, like Frankenstein, the Tin Man and robots, are based on the GOLEM of the kabbalah: a body without a soul.
benjis007 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)
I would agree, but someone has to fight for that self-evident truth of non-ownership, because the enemies of that truth are definately fighting, and they are definately winning.
MrLMULES (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)
No oneowns the earth, as an Australian Aborigine |
