Re: OWNERSHIP: Moral principles and Binary Theory of Property

[John Médaille <john@medaille.com>]

At 11:58 PM 6/28/2005 -0400, Norman G. Kurland wrote:
>Ed,
>
>My problem with your handling of rents on land and natural resources is 
>that it cedes too much power to the state, although both Kelso and I would 
>agree that there is a difference between that which is contributed by 
>nature and that which humans contribute in the form of their labor and 
>their non-land form of asset inputs.

But it is not merely that there is a difference, but that capital and land 
operate under different economic laws. So what do you do with the law of 
rents? It doesn't cease just because we don't like it. At least George 
accounted for it, which neither BE nor neo-classicism does.

>   (See Kelso's treatment of land in his critique of Marx at 
> 
><http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/almostcapitalist.htm>http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/almostcapitalist.htm).

But Kelso doesn't address the law of rents, and hence his discussion is 
incomplete.


>  And, as you know, I find Kelso's binary theory more compelling for 
> solving the income distribution problem, as well as more consistent with 
> the democratic ideal of structuring the diffusion of power from the 
> individual up, rather than from the state down.

Here the problem with BE is not economic, but political. Under an ESOP (and 
related forms), current owners must agree to dilute their ownership either 
out of benevolence or compulsion. But since property is made sacrosanct, 
you eliminate compulsion. Of course, the theory is willing to contemplate 
minor forms of government compulsion, such as tax breaks, etc., but I think 
that few pretend that these alone will be effective on a wide scale. That 
leaves benevolence. Therefore the problem is one not of economics, but of 
evangelization.

>For years I have been promoting the Community Investment Corporations 
>(CIC) as a strategy for dealing locally with land and natural resources 
>with maximum citizen participation and limited or no governmental 
>control.  ( See 
><http://www.cesj.org/homestead/strategies/community/cic-full-nk.html>http://www.cesj.org/homestead/strategies/community/cic-full-nk.html
> 
>and articles linked to this paper.)  We're working in several cities to 
>launch CICs.)

I am curious about how you would get cities to launch CICs (I really am--I 
know a perfect candidate for them) when it requires funding by the Federal 
Reserve. Have you another version of this that doesn't require such funding?


John C. Médaille

"A dead thing can go with the stream...
but only a living thing can go against it."
         -G. K. Chesterton
http://www.medaille.com/distributivism.htm
john@medaille.com

To subscribe to this or another of COG's discussion groups register at:
http://cog.kent.edu/register.html
To unsubscribe from this group send a message to majordomo@cog.kent.edu
with a single line in the body of the message that says:
unsubscribe ownership