Kevin Carson wrote: > > For an occupant, the incentive to build on one's own land would be the same > as always. Since there would be no restriction on the right of the actual > occupier of a piece of land to charge a price before quitting it
Does "quitting" have to mean "selling full title"? It sounds like it rules out leaving but renting to the next occupant. The upshot is that only people who can afford to buy property outright in full can use it. Capital markets can partly solve that problem, but a big problem remains. Or do I misunderstand your remarks about slum occupants taking over their buildings, etc? , it would > be possible to recoup the value of improvements. The only difference would > be, that one could not fence off land he was not occupying or using himself, > and charge others for access to it. > > >From: Bryan Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >What about the effect of this on the incentive to develop and build in > >the first place? Not to mention the incentive to relocate? > > > >A nice way to eliminate "unearned benefits" is to eliminate the > >existence of benefits. > > > >-- > > Prof. Bryan Caplan > > Department of Economics George Mason University > > http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > "He wrote a letter, but did not post it because he felt that no one > > would have understood what he wanted to say, and besides it was not > > necessary that anyone but himself should understand it." > > Leo Tolstoy, *The Cossacks* > > _________________________________________________________________ > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] "He wrote a letter, but did not post it because he felt that no one would have understood what he wanted to say, and besides it was not necessary that anyone but himself should understand it." Leo Tolstoy, *The Cossacks*
