surplus labor value

Yes, the recognition that all underground resources (both mineral and liquid) belong to the nation (and are administrated by local authorities). Who, in turn, contract private enterprises to coordinate and manage their distribution.

This can be done either "with or without" profit, depending upon each state. But, any central government should have the right to sanction "price gouging" if found being practiced ...

 

Oh.

How does a state, or nation, acquire such property rights?

 

By law ... it just passes a law.

However, countries like Russia, which had such a law, simply overlook it - and the plutocrat rich assume control of the major companies exploiting mineral and gas rights ...

 

No, none.

However, given any particular mineral right, if a country decided it were necessary for purpose of national defense or survival would simply pass a derogation of the law.

What I am trying to say is that there is no such thing as "ownership" of under-surface mineral rights. There is only a state-right to permit their discovery - and the discoverer is allowed a certain benefit for the pains undertaking in finding the deposit.

But, essentially, prospectors own nothing, even if they discover they discover the resources ...

 

Okay, so I'll disregard your first answer.

A state is a political entity, established by writing words on paper and drawing lines on maps, and, perhaps, killing large numbers of people who would oppose the words written on paper and lines drawn on maps.

Prospecting is work done for the purpose of locating mineral deposits.

Would you agree with these descriptions?

 

Well, at least you showed some interest. The tax subsidy to the landowner is implied by the Henry George Theorem, which essentially shows that all government spending on desirable services and infrastructure that is not wasted by incompetence or stolen by corruption is given to landowners.

I didn't say my opinions were self-evident. That would make it too easy.

There are others who understand justice. Check out geofree.

 

The conditional remark about "killing people" is idiotic.

Our discussion ends here. Go find some other dupe of your caliber to exchange with you ...

 

Rubbish.

Landowners are only one source of tax-revenues. Non-land_owners is yet another.

The issue here is not the land you own, but the land you do not own - which was confused in the late 19th century by some brigands in Washington drooling over the oil-assets in Texas that would be necessary to fuel the combustion engine.

After all, if one could keep the gold, why not the oil?

Because it did not belong to the finder but the owner of substrate assets - which, for curious reasons, was never ever considered in Congress.

Wow - how stoopid or clever can you get? Depends upon what you'd like to steal! There was no Income Tax in the US, and not even the slightest notion that Federal Expenditures could pay for, say, Education. All they cared about at the time was to have a standing-army with which to protect the nation.

Not a bad idea, mind you, but not nearly enough as "good ideas" go.

During the Industrial Age (of the 19th century) enormous fortunes were made because there was no evident consideration of upper-income taxation. The first of which was finally initiated in a law passed in 1913, and upper-income was taxed at 78%. But with the war-over, it came back down. Only to be put-up once again, when the excesses of the 1920s became apparent and the Great Depression occurred. (And since, for some reason, this site no longer will allow images to be posted, having tried to do so on two different computers, I cannot show you the history of taxation in the US.)

Taxation is the price we all must pay for "governance". Not just government but governance - so, give careful consideration of its definition: "the action or manner of governing a state, organization, etc."

Iow, at what rate they are set and what is the intent of their usage (ie., what purposes, if any).

At the moment, we collect taxes to pay for the debt, and when non-debt (or "discretionary" expenditures) are considered, more than 57% go to the DoD. The other 43% is shared in comparatively minuscule amounts by a number of different agencies (including the FBI).

See that ominous factoid substantiated by this infographic here ...

 

I'm sorry you feel that way.

sedition
insurrection
war

Threats against the life of anyone who would resist the arbitrary claims of the state, and that they often, especially with respect to their establishment, make good on those threats, are well understood as part of their modus operandi.

The remark is not even controversial, let alone "idiotic". Those of my caliber are honest, intelligent, and brave enough to see the world as it really is.

 

See it as "it really is"? And you think you are the only ones who do so? Wow! (You don't get around much in this variegated world of ours, do you?)

I don't live in "your world". I left it quite some time ago, found another far more interesting, more colourful, more hopeful, less fixated on financial values.

You can have yours - enjoy it, hate it, blow-it up, whatever. The rest of the world could care less. Like Rome, another world will be built upon the vestiges of yours; and given your new PotUS-to-be I suspect most of the rest of the world thinks as I do. You will be soon "seeing it through his eyes"!

I know Europe does, and that is fine enough for me. I have learned to greatly appreciate their set of societal values - that are, for the most part antithetical to that of the US. Which is a shame because after WW2 Europeans had a great affection for the US that rescued it from the Nazis.

But, the past is the past and valuable only in fleeting sentiment.

I am pleased that most Europeans have a high-esteem for Barack Obama, because they have seen in him a similar respect for social principles of key importance. Foremost of which is the priority of collective over individual needs/values.

Maybe in time attitudes will change in the US, but - what the hell - there's no good sense in waiting.

Life is too short ...

 

I was interested in a possible discussion of just acquisition of property rights. I made an attempt to come to terms with you on some key definitional points. You lost your cool, and threw some insults in my direction. I responded by clarifying the meaning of what I'd said, and correcting some apparent misapprehension on your part of my "caliber". Your response to that was to launch into a political rant peppered with more presumptuous insults.

I'm not very interested in politics, but I am still interested in the discussion of justifiable property right acquisition if ever you cool down and ditch your prejudices.

 

Property rights are damn simple: They are either above the surface, or below the surface. Having researched the subject (see below), it seems that only one country on earth allows mineral rights to be owned directly by an individual.

In Russia, mineral rights are owned by the state and licensed to companies, see here: Overview
Russian Oil and Gas Sector Regulatory Regime - excerpt:

As regards the US, from here: Mineral rights ownership – what is it and why is it so unique in the USA? - excerpt:

The consequence in either case is very different. The wealth (value of the mineral rights) in the US go to the person owning them, and thus immense wealth is in that way transferred to individuals. In the second case, the mineral rights are owned by the state, but have been awarded to specific companies and those rights have been employed to generate enormous Wealth for certain individuals. There are a great many countries in which this manipulation has created enormous wealth for very few people.

(And, in at least one case, those rights were rescinded and the person sent to jail on the whimsy of the current Russian Tsar Vladimir. See here: Khodorkovsky ...)

OK, so, now where do you want to go from here ... ?

 

My initial question had to do with the acquisition of property rights. I don't see how a justifiable ownership claim can be established arbitrarily, or by violence, fraud, threats of violence, or trespass. This leaves title transfers and homesteading as justifiable ways in which valid ownership claims can be established.

If an individual were to merely define a region of ground, whether or not any of it is already in use by another, I would not see his claim as legitimate, as it is arbitrary at best, and entails trespass and/or violence at worst. By the same token, a group of individuals would not be able to establish a legitimate claim by the same means. This would also imply that prospecting, which amounts to identifying the location of resources, alone, would not be sufficient to establish a property right.

If an individual, or group of individuals, were to begin to employ an unowned, unused region of ground to some useful end, a legitimate ownership claim would be established and a property right(title) in that region would come into being. That title could then be legitimately transferred, by gift or trade, or it could be abolished by abandonment of the property.

These standards are recognizable, intuitively, by all, and applicable equally to any individual or group from the weakest to the strongest. Their enforcement would minimize conflict, thereby maximizing peaceful, harmonious employment of scarce resources by all.

I don't think the above/below surface distinction is quite as clear cut as you've suggested. If an untapped resource below the surface can be extracted without compromising the integrity of occupied surface property, I don't see why anyone should not be free to extract them. Otherwise, the owner of the dependent surface property would be the only party justified in extracting the below-surface resource in question.

 

in the book From a Race of Masters to a Master Race:
Fascism, communism and national socialism[liberalism] all share in common the explicit premise that the individual must subordinate himself to society's needs, or as Hitler would phrase it: 'Society's needs come before the individual needs.'

 

That is a very flawed empirical "definition". It's like saying the Republican Party and BLM share in common the explicit premise that the will of the people is being trampled on by the powers that be.

BTW, "National Socialism" was fascism.

 

to our Founders both are liberal big govt and thus made illegal here by their Constitution. Do you understand? IT does not matter what individual liberals think it only matters that they are liberals. You have learned this 13 times now?

 

Please cite the "anti-liberal-big-government" clause in the constitution.

 

every clause is anti liberal!!! Did you think free speech was so the Girl Scouts would not take away your free speech?????????????

 

I think you should reread the 1st and 14th amendments.

And, I can't figure out your second sentence - unless you were somehow trying for humor.

 

You've got to do better than that.

You aren't even starting to defend your position.

 

so you think the entire Bill of Rights was to protect you from the GIrl Scouts rather than a big liberal govt??

 

I don't get your "Girl Scouts" reference at all.

 

everything in the Constitution is designed to protect you from big liberal govt. You didn't understand what clause in the Constitution was designed to limit govt-remember??????

 

That doesn't answer your "Girl Scout" reference problem.

And, I don't see anything limiting the constitution to the promotion of conservatism.

The fundamental rights of citizens have been supported over the objections of those claiming to be conservatives throughout our nation.

 

the Constitution is designed to hog-tie the monster or Leviathan or liberal govt. That makes it 100% a promotion of conservatism because that is exactly what conservatism wants too. Now do you understand?