People don't just create jobs, it's not that simple

Presumably there is more than one plot of land in any particular area someone might desire to relocate. You need not do anything. It is your choice. You either pay the advertised price or negotiate a different price. Either way you end up paying what is deemed the market price or you decide to walk away and attempt to pay for the use of a different property in the area. No one is forcing you to do anything. This goes for ALL PROPERTY owned by someone else, whether for real estate occupancy or the use of their bicycle. Yes, if it is THEIR PROPERTY you must come to some kind of agreement if you want the use or ownership of THEIR PROPERTY. This is known as property rights. It doesn't belong to you, it belongs to them. Do you think you have some right to dictate a price for the use of their property?

Not that it is an important point of contention, prices are set by supply and demand (margin?). This is the negotiation process mentioned. There are a limitless number of reasons for the demand, not 3. If I asked 20 homebuyers why they bought a particular home they would give me 20 different reasons. If I asked them why they paid a certain price they might indicate other houses on the market, less appealing (for whatever their reason), had less "value" for the price. The aggregate of all these reasons is what constitutes demand. While in the process of negotiations presumably the buyer has looked at price offerings elsewhere nearby which constitutes in their head the supply available. Incidentally the property seller likely also knows the going rate and hence the supply of homes nearby. Regardless, your analysis is an obvious attempt to identify some element of unfairness to it all. There is nothing untoward about the process. It is a simple negotiation regarding the use or purchase of someone else's property. It is their property. If you want it you must come to some kind of consensus or leave them alone to enjoy their property as they see fit. It is the most natural system and existed since the cavemen.

As for the rest of your obfuscation, it is total nonsense. The seller does make a contribution... HIS PROPERTY. And the BOLD statement reminds me of some kind of nomadic anarchical nonsense claiming "The land belongs to everyone, property rights should not exist." Utter nonsense. What about the effort put into the property? My assumption was this was valuable land in high demand in some city. Invariably this means it has been improved. If it was just barren land out on the prairie it was originally purchased at 1000 acres for a dollar or something. Take that "nomadic anarchy property rights are unfair" crap elsewhere.

The entire island of Manhattan was purportedly originally purchased for 24$ worth of beads (which is a myth). It would likely have been a fair market price for unimproved unused swampland. The story is not really true. The NA Indians did not improve lands, they were nomads who tended to follow the herds. As such the concept of land ownership didn't make sense to them. Early traders in the area met with the Nearby native Americans (several tribes) and gave them what the traders valued at around 24$ worth of beads and other trinkets. Which was a considerable load of trinkets at the time. It was kind of like free samples given out by a door-to-door salesman. It was the hope of the European traders this would establish trade. The traders communicated their desire to obtain furs and let them know they would settle near the island shore where they would like to live in friendship and be valuable trading partners in the future. It wasn't like any mortgage documents and payments were drawn up.

 

And the point was that the existence of this fact shows there is something wrong. Why is the availability of good opportunities so concentrated that it is so expensive for people to live near these areas?

My point did not really have so much do with government policy about how to deal with land in the places with good opportunities, but rather government policy about the other areas.

 

You would have to be more specific. What policies would you suggest and for what region?

I will say even before you respond it is almost always preferred to keep the government out of it. Capitalism does the best job of insuring scarce valuable resources are used most efficiently.

 

BWAHAHAHAAA!!! Keep the government out of private landowning?? Try to be serious. Private ownership of land only exists in the first place because governments issued land titles to private persons. Almost all privately owned land in the USA traces the title to a "land patent" issued by a European monarch. ALL governments exercise control of exclusive land tenure, and always have, because that is what government IS: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land.

I guess that must explain the thousands of long-term-vacant parcels of desirable land in every major city in every capitalist country....

 

There is indeed something wrong -- in fact, something evil. You just refuse to know what it is.

Because transportation costs money. Google "von Thunen rent" and start reading.

But that is not the real question. The real question is, "Why have people's natural individual liberty rights to use land been forcibly stripped from them by government without just compensation and converted into the private property of landowners?"

Because the other areas are not very important, and you want to evade the important issues. MY point is about government policy on how to deal with land in the places with good opportunities because I am the one who actually wants to solve the important problems.

 

How would that be relevant to anything? There might also be more than one protection racket operating in a city. Choosing which gangster you pay off doesn't mean you aren't being robbed.

Garbage. If you want to work, you need to pay a landowner full market value for permission. No one was ever given a choice of whether to have their rights to liberty forcibly stripped from them and made into the private property of landowners.

See above re protection rackets. Do you think a slave is any less a slave if he gets to choose who owns his right to liberty?

That is just objectively false. Landowners are forcing you to either pay them for what government, the community and nature provide, or do without -- and no one can even exist without using land.

No it doesn't. The difference with land is that it would have been there just the same, ready to use, even if its owner and every previous owner had never existed. A bicycle had to have an original owner: its producer.

You will say, do, and believe anything whatever to avoid knowing that fact.

That is the same "argument" that slave owners used against the abolitionists. Problem is, any argument that could be used to justify chattel slavery is already known in advance to be fallacious, dishonest, and evil, with no further argumentation needed.

No. All demand for land is based on the three factors I identified.

Homes are products of labor, not land. Try to keep your eye on the ball. (Prediction: you won't.)

And that attempt was successful: it is indisputably unfair that the productive must pay for government twice -- once in taxes to fund desirable public services and infrastructure, and then again in land rent to idle landowners for permission to access the desirable public services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for -- so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for doing and contributing exactly nothing.

There is most definitely and indisputably something untoward about it, as proved above: the landowner's legal entitlement to charge others just for his permission to exercise their liberty rights to access the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location. Why on earth would he be entitled to charge others for benefits he does not provide? Do you also claim there would be "nothing untoward" if some thug had a legal license -- a "property right" -- to charge you again for the bread you take home from the bakery?

See above re arguments that were used to justify chattel slavery being automatically fallacious, dishonest and evil.

So if government issued a title of ownership to say, your daughter, you would just "come to a consensus" and negotiate a price with her owner or leave them alone to enjoy their property as they saw fit?

No, it is entirely unnatural, was even incomprehensible to all indigenous hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding peoples who were first exposed to it, and has only existed in its modern form for a few thousand years -- basically since Roman times.

You cannot refute a single sentence of it. Watch:

How could he be contributing something that would have been perfectly available for use if he had never existed? If government issued titles of private ownership to the letters of the alphabet, would you say the owner of "A" was somehow making a contribution every time someone used that letter, and should be paid rent for it? Or would you be honest, and admit that he was just a greedy, evil thief exercising an unjust and indefensible privilege?

No it doesn't. That is just a fabrication on your part. Far from being an anarchist, its author was one of the key founders and greatest presidents of the USA. He simply recognized, as all competent property rights theorists do (but you do not), that rightful property in the fruits of one's labor is very different from wrongful property in others' natural individual rights to liberty.

That's improvement, not land.

See? I predicted that you would not keep your eye on the ball, and you didn't let me down.

No it doesn't, and the unimproved value of the land depends only on the three factors I identified, not on anything the owner has done.

Land out on the prairie gets much less advantage from the services and infrastructure government provides and the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and usually from the physical qualities nature provides (like proximity to navigable watercourses).

I will continue to identify the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that prove property is only rightful in the fruits of labor, not in natural resources -- and thus also prove that your beliefs are false and evil.

False. Some were nomads and hunter-gatherers, but many others did improve land and engage in agriculture. They just never claimed to own it.

Thank you for admitting that your claim was false: private property in land is definitely not natural, and definitely has not existed since caveman times.