- 10 Apr 2020 21:34
#15083408
Again, this is stupefyingly long, so I can only hit the salient points.
It is based on refusal to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, especially the fact that the factory owner has no power to take anything from the worker, or do anything but offer him access to economic opportunity he would not otherwise have.
Right. The fact that land value is no longer mainly rural shows your attempt to pretend I am advocating some kind of return to bucolic existence just because I talk about land is a disingenuous attempt on your part to divert attention from what I actually said, and from the salient economic facts.
They do if they want to understand, and understanding is the goal of all genuine science.
Statistics is a much broader discipline that has application throughout the natural and behavioral sciences as well as business, sports, etc., etc.
Don't get me started. I already identified one way, above. Another is the M-C-M' nonsense, which is factually incorrect about how money relates to production.
No, they do not, so no, they do not. Producer goods like buildings, equipment, vehicles, etc. depreciate over time. Saved money is slowly eroded by inflation unless its owner takes the risk of letting someone else who thinks they have a better use for it use it. Collectibles like art, etc. only appreciate to the extent that their original producers created value that increases over time: most such products depreciate and are eventually thrown away. Gold and precious metals sometimes appreciate faster than inflation, sometimes not, depending on market conditions. Gold has done better than inflation for the last 20 years or so, but before that was actually declining in value for a similar length of time. Silver and platinum have done badly for ~10 years.
If there is any appreciation of such assets, it just reflects how the market values them, not -- UNlike rentier assets -- something taken out of the economy just by owning them.
No, I am not. I am stating the anti-Marxist FACT that value -- what a thing would trade for -- comes entirely and exclusively from the combination of its scarcity (supply) and utility (demand).
Yes I have: payment of the market rent (the high bid) by whoever gets secure, exclusive tenure to the community of those thus excluded, with a universal individual exemption to ensure everyone has free, secure, exclusive tenure on enough of the available advantageous land of their choice to have access to economic opportunity.
If you want to continue this discussion, you will have to somehow find a willingness to know the difference between land and products of labor. I do not know how to communicate with someone who refuses to know the most self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality. It's completely pointless as well as frustrating, like trying to discuss a plumbing problem with someone who insists that air and water are the same thing and refuses to know the fact that they are not.
No; in the case of LAND, that's false. It was already usable and salable, which is why he had to pay the previous owner so much for it, and it is the taxpayer who has had to pay for the desirable public services and infrastructure whose value the landowner is privileged to appropriate for himself.
In the case of products of labor, the initial owner, the producer, created the product by his decision and initiative to bring together all the necessary factors -- including labor, but also resources, location, plan, design, direction, etc. -- for it to exist rather than not exist. And any subsequent owner has paid, however indirectly or through however many intermediate transactions, for that act of creating the product.
No, the worker agreed to exchange the product of his labor for wages. The employer therefore hasn't deprived him of anything. It was the LANDOWNER who deprived him of his liberty, his options, and thus his bargaining power vis-a-vis the employer. Marxism/socialism consists in blaming the factory owner for what the landowner does to the worker (neoclassicalism/capitalism consists in blaming the worker).
Huh?? Why would he get both the product of his labor and the wages he voluntarily agreed to exchange it for??
I have stated the fact that the producer gets ownership because he made the decisions and arranged, coordinated and paid for all the factors that made the product exist rather than not exist.
Whoever has paid the appropriate party for it.
No. Merely calling something yours doesn't make it rightly yours. He had his turn using the land for free when no one else wanted it. Now that others are willing to pay to use it, he has to make just compensation to the community of those he excludes from it.
That is the central problem of property rights on which all of human history has turned, and whose correct solution would have saved thousands of years of poverty, injustice, robbery, enslavement, starvation, despair and death: how to separate rightful property in fixed improvements produced by labor from wrongful property in the land nature provided for all. But that correct solution can never be implemented, or even described, as long as socialists and capitalists refuse to know the difference.
The correct solution is for the producer of fixed improvements to own them as his rightful property, and the exclusive holder of the land to make just (market) compensation to the community of those whom he excludes from the land. That is normally quite trivial to implement, and in practice is only problematic when the two are no longer the same person. In the latter case, the new landholder would normally just pay the previous one an agreed price for the improvements -- this is obviously done all the time in real estate transactions -- and use them himself.
The remaining -- and only really difficult -- case is when the previous landholder and owner of the improvements is no longer willing or able to make just compensation to the community for depriving everyone else of the land, but the prospective new landholder who is willing to pay the community for the land does not want to pay the improvements' owner as much for them as the latter wants.
This irreducible conflict of rights is most fairly resolved by reference to the market: the improvements' owner can only demand to be paid the assessed market value for them. If no prospective new landholder wants to pay that much, the owner retains tenure at the current rent but is prohibited from making additional improvements. When a prospective new landholder is willing to pay the assessed market value for the improvements or the community land authority determines that the improvements are worth less than the increased rent a new holder would pay, the improvements' owner is paid the assessed market value for them and loses tenure to a new landholder.
Huh?? Of course it doesn't. Rights are conserved in consensual transactions. The worker's legal entitlement to be PAID the agreed sum for the product of his labor is precisely how his right to own it is recognized, secured, and enforced. That is why wage labor is as different from slavery as consensual sex is from rape.
But he would be wrong both because he was already paid for his labor and because land cannot rightly be anyone's property.
That is a more plausible claim, and certainly entitles him to the market value of the landscaping. But he paid the wrong party for the land, and thus can't rightly claim to own it, much less its current publicly created value. At most, he may claim the purchase price he paid for it, and I would advocate such compensation to existing landholders as a transition measure when vacating their titles.
No, what makes it capitalism is that the land as well as the improvement is owned as property.
False. See above.
False. You have not the slightest understanding of what I propose or how radically different it is from capitalism, because you insist that air and water are the same thing, and refuse to know the fact that they are not.
This notion of "commodification" is like claiming that air and water are the same thing because they can both flow through a pipe. What is being bought and sold in the case of land is the privilege of secure, exclusive tenure. That is entirely different from a product of labor.
In the geoist system land is held under secure, exclusive tenure in return for voluntary payment of the market rent to the community, not bought, and everyone has a right to free, secure, exclusive tenure on enough of the available advantageous land of their choice to have access to economic opportunity.
What is really spurious is the concept of commodification. It has no relevance, and adds no information. It's just a ridiculous Marxist red herring.
The default treatment of land is the equal individual liberty rights of all to use it non-exclusively, as our ancestors did for millions of years. Its appropriation as private property under capitalism is an innovation only a few thousand years old: before appropriation of land as private property was implemented in Roman law, land was never considered an individual's property, but only held under some kind of conditional institution of exclusive tenure.
The difference between private property in land and its market allocation ("commodification") under a framework that secures and reconciles the equal individual rights of all to use it through the system of just compensations may seem trivial or superficial, but is actually profound, and completely alters economic relationships to the benefit of all but a tiny minority of wealthy landowners.
Voluntarily trading his product for wages is not being "deprived" of it anymore than you are being "deprived" of your money when a baker charges you for a loaf of bread. Duh.
That's my question to you.
I agree. It's just a different form of private ownership, a kind of socialism-within-capitalism.
Because it restores people's rights to liberty, which capitalism removes, they are free to produce without having to pay landowners just for permission to produce. And because it secures people's property rights in the fruits of their labor, which socialism removes, it is just, and gets the incentives right. It thus creates a freer, fairer society than capitalism, and a more productive and prosperous one than socialism. It retains the best of both, while removing the worst of both.
Production relieves scarcity. The right to keep what one produces is the price of accurate production incentives. If you think people's needs will not be met if the producer gets to keep what he produces, try NOT letting the producer keep what he produces, and see how well people's needs are met.
The geoist model relieves production of the burden of taxation. It taxes people for what they TAKE from the community, not what they MAKE.
No, because PRODUCTION, which geoism encourages, RELIEVES SCARCITY and is therefore NOT at the expense of the working class. Conventional capitalist business practice is more focused on RENT SEEKING, which INFLICTS scarcity on others by legally requiring them to pay for PERMISSION, and thus IS at the expense of the working class.
GET IT???
<sigh> As I have explained to you several times, labor is exploited under capitalism because LANDOWNERS deprive workers of their liberty, their options, and thus their bargaining position, NOT because EMPLOYERS hire them to work.
GET IT???
I'm too honest.
I don't have any particular attachment to the nation-state; it's clearly dysfunctional in many cases, especially where colonial legacies are still in place. I just don't see a viable alternative. People have a sense of geographic, linguistic, cultural and historical as well as economic and political community that they are not comfortable giving up. See the problems with the EU.
How is that working out for you?
It would be utterly different. You just refuse to know the difference between paying a baker for a loaf of bread and paying a thief who stole the bread from the baker because they both involve "exchange values, money, finance."
Land is never rightly private property.
Why would it be outsourced to a private management firm?
Garbage. You just refuse to know that air and water are not the same thing.
Workers trade their product for wages. They have an equal right to the commons, and to just compensation for abrogation of that right.
False. See above for how workers are exploited.
Labor is not exploited if the workers have their rights, and "commodification" is ridiculous, uninformative, anti-economic gibberish.
Bald falsehood. The status quo entitles the private landowner to keep the publicly created value of the land.
Because value is what something would exchange for, that is inherently how value is measured.
Oh, give it a rest. If we are to have an economy above the hunter-gatherer or nomadic herding level, someone has to secure exclusive tenure. It just happens to be government's job.
No, it does not sell it to owners. It requires just payment to the community for what the exclusive holder is taking from the community.
Both.
No. The landowner is not providing anything, just charging the user for permission to access the advantages government, the community and nature already provided. The owner of saved money, by contrast, is providing the borrower with purchasing power that would not otherwise have been available to him: purchasing power he earned but did not consume.
No. They are no more unproductive than the laborer who just sits there until hired. They all contribute to production when applied to production. The difference is that the laborer contributes his labor, which would not exist but for his contribution of time and effort, and the saver contributes his savings, which would not exist but for his contribution of time and effort and thrift, but THE LAND WAS ALREADY THERE ANYWAY, READY TO USE, with no help from the landowner whatever. You have merely decided not to know that fact.
Irrelevant. The fact that you legally have to pay someone for something does not mean they are necessarily the source of it. You had to pay a slave owner for the cotton his slaves grew and picked, but that doesn't mean it was the owner who did the work and not the slaves.
No, it's the OWNER of the land who is non-productive, not the land, and the OWNER of the factories, machinery, etc. who IS productive because the factories and machinery WOULD NOT BE THERE if he had not arranged and paid for them to be. You have merely decided not to know that fact because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.
That is a bald falsehood.
That is also a bald falsehood. It is a waste of time trying to discuss these issues with you. You just refuse to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality and make $#!+ up about what I have plainly written in clear, grammatical English. IOW, you are a Marxist. Karl would be proud of you.
ckaihatsu wrote:what is it that you *object* to about Marxism, exactly?
It is based on refusal to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, especially the fact that the factory owner has no power to take anything from the worker, or do anything but offer him access to economic opportunity he would not otherwise have.
Perhaps I'm being too critical though - - perhaps you just mean it as a *measurement*.
Right. The fact that land value is no longer mainly rural shows your attempt to pretend I am advocating some kind of return to bucolic existence just because I talk about land is a disingenuous attempt on your part to divert attention from what I actually said, and from the salient economic facts.
No, there are social sciences, particularly sociology, that *do not have to* examine social dynamics at the scale of the individual.
They do if they want to understand, and understanding is the goal of all genuine science.
Statistics would be another one, which is closer to a *hard* science, being mathematical, though its subject matter tends to be social dynamics.
Statistics is a much broader discipline that has application throughout the natural and behavioral sciences as well as business, sports, etc., etc.
how is Marxism 'provably incorrect'?
Don't get me started. I already identified one way, above. Another is the M-C-M' nonsense, which is factually incorrect about how money relates to production.
But they *do* yield 'economic rent' in the form of asset value *appreciation* over time - - that's why people use them as financial vehicles for the hoarding of wealth.
No, they do not, so no, they do not. Producer goods like buildings, equipment, vehicles, etc. depreciate over time. Saved money is slowly eroded by inflation unless its owner takes the risk of letting someone else who thinks they have a better use for it use it. Collectibles like art, etc. only appreciate to the extent that their original producers created value that increases over time: most such products depreciate and are eventually thrown away. Gold and precious metals sometimes appreciate faster than inflation, sometimes not, depending on market conditions. Gold has done better than inflation for the last 20 years or so, but before that was actually declining in value for a similar length of time. Silver and platinum have done badly for ~10 years.
This increase in value ultimately has to be provided by the overall economy somehow, once the asset is cashed-out for the capital gains realized.
If there is any appreciation of such assets, it just reflects how the market values them, not -- UNlike rentier assets -- something taken out of the economy just by owning them.
Also, you're making a *Marxist* argument, in that the economic ('exchange') value of any given asset is sourced from work done by laborers to produce it in the first place (along with any speculative, market-price-pushing bidding activity).
No, I am not. I am stating the anti-Marxist FACT that value -- what a thing would trade for -- comes entirely and exclusively from the combination of its scarcity (supply) and utility (demand).
You still haven't provided any theory or ideology on how land *should* be distributed, if the way it's *been* done has been so alienating to the working class.
Yes I have: payment of the market rent (the high bid) by whoever gets secure, exclusive tenure to the community of those thus excluded, with a universal individual exemption to ensure everyone has free, secure, exclusive tenure on enough of the available advantageous land of their choice to have access to economic opportunity.
But under capitalism it's the *owner* who has bought the commodity (land, etc.)
If you want to continue this discussion, you will have to somehow find a willingness to know the difference between land and products of labor. I do not know how to communicate with someone who refuses to know the most self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality. It's completely pointless as well as frustrating, like trying to discuss a plumbing problem with someone who insists that air and water are the same thing and refuses to know the fact that they are not.
from the previous owner or government, and has paid for the human labor power to make it a usable, saleable product,
No; in the case of LAND, that's false. It was already usable and salable, which is why he had to pay the previous owner so much for it, and it is the taxpayer who has had to pay for the desirable public services and infrastructure whose value the landowner is privileged to appropriate for himself.
In the case of products of labor, the initial owner, the producer, created the product by his decision and initiative to bring together all the necessary factors -- including labor, but also resources, location, plan, design, direction, etc. -- for it to exist rather than not exist. And any subsequent owner has paid, however indirectly or through however many intermediate transactions, for that act of creating the product.
and so deprives the worker of the *product* of his or her labor.
No, the worker agreed to exchange the product of his labor for wages. The employer therefore hasn't deprived him of anything. It was the LANDOWNER who deprived him of his liberty, his options, and thus his bargaining power vis-a-vis the employer. Marxism/socialism consists in blaming the factory owner for what the landowner does to the worker (neoclassicalism/capitalism consists in blaming the worker).
The *laborer* does not walk-away with the product,
Huh?? Why would he get both the product of his labor and the wages he voluntarily agreed to exchange it for??
it's the *owner* that does, contrary to what you're indicating.
I have stated the fact that the producer gets ownership because he made the decisions and arranged, coordinated and paid for all the factors that made the product exist rather than not exist.
But then who 'manages' any given commodity, say, a parcel of land?
Whoever has paid the appropriate party for it.
If someone within your 'community' worked a piece of previously unclaimed land and then called it their own, could they then *sell* it?
No. Merely calling something yours doesn't make it rightly yours. He had his turn using the land for free when no one else wanted it. Now that others are willing to pay to use it, he has to make just compensation to the community of those he excludes from it.
If so, then that parcel of land would be *commodified*, and it would have a private-property *owner*, separate from the original labor, and any additional labor used, as for landscaping and buildings on that property.
This is why, above all other subissues, I'd like to hear your take on how to reconcile 'private', with 'public'. When would privatization be allowed, according to you, and when would it *not* be allowed?
That is the central problem of property rights on which all of human history has turned, and whose correct solution would have saved thousands of years of poverty, injustice, robbery, enslavement, starvation, despair and death: how to separate rightful property in fixed improvements produced by labor from wrongful property in the land nature provided for all. But that correct solution can never be implemented, or even described, as long as socialists and capitalists refuse to know the difference.
The correct solution is for the producer of fixed improvements to own them as his rightful property, and the exclusive holder of the land to make just (market) compensation to the community of those whom he excludes from the land. That is normally quite trivial to implement, and in practice is only problematic when the two are no longer the same person. In the latter case, the new landholder would normally just pay the previous one an agreed price for the improvements -- this is obviously done all the time in real estate transactions -- and use them himself.
The remaining -- and only really difficult -- case is when the previous landholder and owner of the improvements is no longer willing or able to make just compensation to the community for depriving everyone else of the land, but the prospective new landholder who is willing to pay the community for the land does not want to pay the improvements' owner as much for them as the latter wants.
This irreducible conflict of rights is most fairly resolved by reference to the market: the improvements' owner can only demand to be paid the assessed market value for them. If no prospective new landholder wants to pay that much, the owner retains tenure at the current rent but is prohibited from making additional improvements. When a prospective new landholder is willing to pay the assessed market value for the improvements or the community land authority determines that the improvements are worth less than the increased rent a new holder would pay, the improvements' owner is paid the assessed market value for them and loses tenure to a new landholder.
Okay, here it is, but I maintain that this treatment of yours *conflicts* with your prior axiom of 'rights to one's products of labor'. All someone has to do is say 'I have enough money to pay someone to do something for me', and that commodification of labor immediately *nullifies* the laborers "rights" to keep the products of their labor.
Huh?? Of course it doesn't. Rights are conserved in consensual transactions. The worker's legal entitlement to be PAID the agreed sum for the product of his labor is precisely how his right to own it is recognized, secured, and enforced. That is why wage labor is as different from slavery as consensual sex is from rape.
The laborer could say 'I did the landscaping, and so the land should be mine',
But he would be wrong both because he was already paid for his labor and because land cannot rightly be anyone's property.
but the owner will say 'I paid someone for the land itself, and I paid the laborer to landscape it, so I get to keep the full value of what the landscaped land is worth on the market.'
That is a more plausible claim, and certainly entitles him to the market value of the landscaping. But he paid the wrong party for the land, and thus can't rightly claim to own it, much less its current publicly created value. At most, he may claim the purchase price he paid for it, and I would advocate such compensation to existing landholders as a transition measure when vacating their titles.
This, by the way, is *capitalism*, which commodities labor *and* labor-value, for those who have capital to invest in such processes. The laborer is *alienated* from whatever it is they produce, for the payment of a wage, for the necessities of life and living.
No, what makes it capitalism is that the land as well as the improvement is owned as property.
You may have good intentions, but your politics don't account for how things *currently* get done under capitalism, as just described,
False. See above.
and you're not proposing anything that's much different, realistically.
False. You have not the slightest understanding of what I propose or how radically different it is from capitalism, because you insist that air and water are the same thing, and refuse to know the fact that they are not.
I remember running into this subissue with you in the past - - you were not-acknowledging that even *land* is commodified, because it is bought-and-sold.
This notion of "commodification" is like claiming that air and water are the same thing because they can both flow through a pipe. What is being bought and sold in the case of land is the privilege of secure, exclusive tenure. That is entirely different from a product of labor.
Only those who can *afford* to buy land will ultimately have access to it, because it *is* a commodity and has market-pricing.
In the geoist system land is held under secure, exclusive tenure in return for voluntary payment of the market rent to the community, not bought, and everyone has a right to free, secure, exclusive tenure on enough of the available advantageous land of their choice to have access to economic opportunity.
No, it can't be physically relocated, but that's spurious to its commodification anyway.
What is really spurious is the concept of commodification. It has no relevance, and adds no information. It's just a ridiculous Marxist red herring.
You *just* said that land can't be extracted, yet it's still commodified (bought-and-sold), so it's privatized through private property ownership currently. How would your politics alter this default treatment of commodification of land?
The default treatment of land is the equal individual liberty rights of all to use it non-exclusively, as our ancestors did for millions of years. Its appropriation as private property under capitalism is an innovation only a few thousand years old: before appropriation of land as private property was implemented in Roman law, land was never considered an individual's property, but only held under some kind of conditional institution of exclusive tenure.
The difference between private property in land and its market allocation ("commodification") under a framework that secures and reconciles the equal individual rights of all to use it through the system of just compensations may seem trivial or superficial, but is actually profound, and completely alters economic relationships to the benefit of all but a tiny minority of wealthy landowners.
So, with this, you're merely describing how private property ownership operates *today* - - any laborer who produces a commodity, or makes improvements to a commodity (land), will just be paid a wage and deprived of the *product* of their labor, correct?
Voluntarily trading his product for wages is not being "deprived" of it anymore than you are being "deprived" of your money when a baker charges you for a loaf of bread. Duh.
If a bunch of workers in a coop of whatever sort complete their group task, say building a car, *who decides* how the revenue from the sale of that car is to be used? What if there are internal disputes and factions form around differing, conflicting policy trajectories (the build-more-infrastructure faction vs. the compensate-workers-more faction)?
That's my question to you.
Workers coops do *not* challenge capitalism at all, and so are *not* anti-capitalist - - they're too apolitical.
I agree. It's just a different form of private ownership, a kind of socialism-within-capitalism.
What I *don't* get is why you *advocate* for it (Georgism / geoism), and *how* it's conceivably better than either socialism or capitalism, in structure.
Because it restores people's rights to liberty, which capitalism removes, they are free to produce without having to pay landowners just for permission to produce. And because it secures people's property rights in the fruits of their labor, which socialism removes, it is just, and gets the incentives right. It thus creates a freer, fairer society than capitalism, and a more productive and prosperous one than socialism. It retains the best of both, while removing the worst of both.
Again, I don't see how this model is significantly different from the status quo - - moreover, once something is *privatized*, it's the owner's *private property* - - including commodified labor-power, and will be protected / defended as such despite any other human *need* for it, even if it's functionally *inactive*.
Production relieves scarcity. The right to keep what one produces is the price of accurate production incentives. If you think people's needs will not be met if the producer gets to keep what he produces, try NOT letting the producer keep what he produces, and see how well people's needs are met.
How would *your* approach steer clear of favoring moneyed elites, exactly, if the government is funded through taxes on private gainful economic activity (a growing economy) ?
The geoist model relieves production of the burden of taxation. It taxes people for what they TAKE from the community, not what they MAKE.
So what you're saying is that you want government to 'keep the peace' (in civil society) while conventional, current business practices continue to go on, at the expense of the working class.
No, because PRODUCTION, which geoism encourages, RELIEVES SCARCITY and is therefore NOT at the expense of the working class. Conventional capitalist business practice is more focused on RENT SEEKING, which INFLICTS scarcity on others by legally requiring them to pay for PERMISSION, and thus IS at the expense of the working class.
GET IT???
You *claim* to want laborers to keep the product of their labor, but you don't explain *how* (in relation to ownership) and you don't acknowledge that labor *itself* is treated as a commodity, and exploited, under capitalism.
<sigh> As I have explained to you several times, labor is exploited under capitalism because LANDOWNERS deprive workers of their liberty, their options, and thus their bargaining position, NOT because EMPLOYERS hire them to work.
GET IT???
Are you a professional politician?
I'm too honest.
With statements like these you're just reinforcing the *nationalism* aspect of your politics, which is *not* compatible with the nobler / progressive portions of your expressed politics. I think you're giving working-class interests *lip service* by not-addressing those interests in any kind of *detail*.
I don't have any particular attachment to the nation-state; it's clearly dysfunctional in many cases, especially where colonial legacies are still in place. I just don't see a viable alternative. People have a sense of geographic, linguistic, cultural and historical as well as economic and political community that they are not comfortable giving up. See the problems with the EU.
(I'll remind that workers do not have *any* national interests because workers can organize *internationally*, on a *class* basis.)
How is that working out for you?
But land-as-a-commodity would still exist, and such land values would be measured in *exchange values* (money, finance) - - it wouldn't be any different than the capitalism of today.
It would be utterly different. You just refuse to know the difference between paying a baker for a loaf of bread and paying a thief who stole the bread from the baker because they both involve "exchange values, money, finance."
If land is still private property then it's *not* nationalized.
Land is never rightly private property.
The 'trust' you mention is simply state control, possibly outsourced to a private management firm.
Why would it be outsourced to a private management firm?
You're still basically describing the status quo and are not proposing anything different.
Garbage. You just refuse to know that air and water are not the same thing.
See - - this is your ideology showing through - - what happened to 'the workers keeping their product', and ['the commons'] ?
Workers trade their product for wages. They have an equal right to the commons, and to just compensation for abrogation of that right.
By upholding private property you're leaving the economic exploitation of workers in-place,
False. See above for how workers are exploited.
with both land (and all rentier-type assets) and labor being commodified and exploited.
Labor is not exploited if the workers have their rights, and "commodification" is ridiculous, uninformative, anti-economic gibberish.
Status quo.
Bald falsehood. The status quo entitles the private landowner to keep the publicly created value of the land.
Your yardstick of 'efficient' is only in terms of *exchange values* (money / currency / finance).
Because value is what something would exchange for, that is inherently how value is measured.
So - - tell me if I'm parsing correctly - - government secures land through military imperialism,
Oh, give it a rest. If we are to have an economy above the hunter-gatherer or nomadic herding level, someone has to secure exclusive tenure. It just happens to be government's job.
and then leases or sells this newly created private property commodity to private owners, thus making it into a commodity.
No, it does not sell it to owners. It requires just payment to the community for what the exclusive holder is taking from the community.
Are you *opposed* to private landownership, or are you *for* competing private landholders in a free market?
Both.
But in both cases, land and liquid capital, an asset-type economic *service* is being provided, that being the leased usage of physical land, for rent payments, and the usage of capital, presumably for investments, respectively.
No. The landowner is not providing anything, just charging the user for permission to access the advantages government, the community and nature already provided. The owner of saved money, by contrast, is providing the borrower with purchasing power that would not otherwise have been available to him: purchasing power he earned but did not consume.
The sources of value themselves, land and capital, etc., are *non-productive* because they just sit there until rented.
No. They are no more unproductive than the laborer who just sits there until hired. They all contribute to production when applied to production. The difference is that the laborer contributes his labor, which would not exist but for his contribution of time and effort, and the saver contributes his savings, which would not exist but for his contribution of time and effort and thrift, but THE LAND WAS ALREADY THERE ANYWAY, READY TO USE, with no help from the landowner whatever. You have merely decided not to know that fact.
And, once rented, they have to be paid for, with rent and interest, respectively, for their leasing, regardless of what happens during the time of their leasing.
Irrelevant. The fact that you legally have to pay someone for something does not mean they are necessarily the source of it. You had to pay a slave owner for the cotton his slaves grew and picked, but that doesn't mean it was the owner who did the work and not the slaves.
You're trying to make a false distinction when *all* rentier-type assets are the same, namely non-commodity-productive themselves, including the land underneath *productive* (equity) goods like factories and machinery.
No, it's the OWNER of the land who is non-productive, not the land, and the OWNER of the factories, machinery, etc. who IS productive because the factories and machinery WOULD NOT BE THERE if he had not arranged and paid for them to be. You have merely decided not to know that fact because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.
Your treatment of land / natural resources / natural monopolies is no different from the status quo, though.
That is a bald falsehood.
You *acknowledge* the historical social ills of [plutocracy], robbery, slavery, oppression, war, starvation, despair and death, but in the end you're saying 'stay the course'.
That is also a bald falsehood. It is a waste of time trying to discuss these issues with you. You just refuse to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality and make $#!+ up about what I have plainly written in clear, grammatical English. IOW, you are a Marxist. Karl would be proud of you.