When one makes and sells an airplane one gets paid for an airplane. Sounds like a good deal and nobody is harmed in the process. Now, what if along with the airplane, one sold a specific route through the sky which only the owner of the airplane may enter and nobody else? Now the buyer has to pay for both the airplane and the route and then his customers will pay the buyer for both the airplane and his anti competitive monopoly over the route. That doesn't sound fair now, does it? When one makes and sells an automobile one gets paid for an automobile. Sounds like a good deal and nobody is harmed in the process. Now, what if along with the automobile, one is legally privileged to sell a limited amount of road infrastructure usage licenses without which nobody is allowed to drive on the roads? Now the buyer has to pay for both the automobile and the legal privilege and then he will charge others for both the automobile and the legal privilege in this non competitive market once he sells it or runs a transportation business. That doesn't sound fair now, does it? This is the kind of unfairness Geoists fight in real estate. We want people to make buildings and get paid for buildings. Problem is, because buildings are fixed improvements, the unfairness I highlighted in my hypothetical examples is ALWAYS present. Though it often has the appearance of merely being a productive endeavor, just like the airplane maker did not create the sky, the seller did not create the land, and, just like the automobile maker did not create the road, the seller did not create the advantages which he charges for (Nature, infrastructure, and the community make it valuable).
I was imagining it even unfairer, huge channels through the sky, and it doesn't change the point I was making regardless. However little or big, it's still an unfair gain. (Plus, Boeing charges for the sky?) I could do other analogies, if you prefer.
Look, dismiss my thread if you wish because of an overlook on my part, but it doesn't change the point I was making whatsoever. Surely, even though it happens a little now, it's still an unfair gain.
Maybe I need to restart a new thread based on the same principles so that people don't just use it as an excuse to ignore the point
Are all 610 of your posts about this issue? Now I assume you do believe in national sovereignty, right? You believe that the government of the people of the United States has the land rights and air space rights within it's own territory, right? And Canada has the same rights over it's territories, so the US can't march it's forces (or it's citizens go) through Canada without permission from the Canadian government, right? Here's your problem - the government still has land rights, as shown below in red. The government ceded, mostly through sale, land rights to all the white areas on the map. So you believe that land rights belong to the government, or the people. But here's the thing - the government sold land rights. Now, we've gone through this end bit before, but the government could buy back land and then rent it out, at the cost of trillions upon trillions of dollars, but as we both already know that is not something you are in favor of. The land, having increased in value, you now want the government to go back on it's deal and seize the land by force. Which is why you've been called a statist, and are so through and through.
No because every step is charged. Airlines have to buy routes to fly, they have to buy terminal space. Passengers in many countries have to pay a tax for leaving the country and returning again
Don't say that! It will only confuse the OP! - - - Updated - - - What's a Geoist?????? Sounds like one of those made up categories that Mark Levin rants about.
I believe he may have meant a support of Henry George, but the OP admitted being tired so not really sure
Unfair gain? I'm more concerned with the fact that several airlines still are trying to squeeze profit-per-flight by squeezing people together even more. http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2013/10/15/new-seats-let-airlines-squeeze-in-more-passengers/
But not by the aircraft maker. So you are wrong, and everything you have said on the subject is wrong, and will continue to be wrong. They do not pay the aircraft maker for either. Again, not to the aircraft maker. You will say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER in order to avoid knowing the facts the OP presented.
No. But what if they were? Limited by the equal rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. That's an arrangement that seems to work well enough. Garbage. It simply issued private fee-simple titles of tenure. It still exercises sovereign authority to administer possession and use of all the land -- and in no case I am aware of was private title issued with a perpetual immunity from taxation. Government can only rightly administer them in trust for the people. If it betrays that trust -- as issuing perpetual allodial titles would -- that invalidates any associated transaction. It also sold slave deeds. You were saying...? Because it would mean paying landowners for what government and the community are giving them in the first place. Better to go back on an unjust deal that abrogates people's rights than try to sustain the injustice in perpetuity. Didn't slavery teach you anything? That is not only false, it is dishonest and despicable.
