Capitalism, Environmentalism, Geolibertarianism

I recently read an article by David Bertelsen here:,_Wanna_Get_Rich.shtml

And I just had to comment.


"How are we going to turn a buck to our 50,000 acre 'Untouched by Man's
Hands' Green Paradise if the damn government lets people into it's littered,
uncared for 'National Park' next door!...

"Money isn't just money. It's frozen desire! It's the result that we
accumulate when we effectively manage to produce something of value to
others, and convince them to trade with us!"


This is based on an invalid conception of land use rights

Making money by allowing others the use of land that you aren't using is
immoral. The only moral basis for any claim to land is your own (not another
�s) productive use (including enjoyment) of that land.

If you build (create) a business and hire a worker, you are entitled to that
portion of the workers labor that is made possible by your entrepreneurship.
If you have accumulated capital and invest if for a return by allowing other
the use of it for a fee (interest), that is your entitlement as well.

But land is not created as a result of mans effort, so it is a common
heritage to all, and therefore it is the proper function of government to
protect this right - in the same way and for the same reasons as it should
do so in regards to aggression.

People do not just need freedom from aggression to live, they also require
the literal space and materials of the earth upon and with which to act and
produce. And so long as there is any part of the earth that one can use in
an honest way that is not impeding the ability of another to do the same,
they are morally justified in doing so.

What I want to know is this: what "value" does one "produce" by in effect
saying "this is my land because the government says so, or because I traded
something with the person who was using it, or because no one is using it
(including me) but I say its mine and you now have to pay me if you want to
use it.

The right to use land is like the right to breathe air. You are entitled to
it without regard to others if and only when and to the exact extent that
you are using it. Anything else must be negotiated with any others who may
want the use of it as well. And one method of negotiating (arbitrating) this
conflict of interest is through paying a differential to the other
interested parties for exclusive use of what is essential community property
or common heritage.

And a land value tax does this quite well, but that is another subject

Click the following links for more information:


Henry George


Thought I would pass this link along since there has
been much discussion lately on who should have rights
- be it animal, tree, fetus or elderly person.

For those here into computer science, you will
undoubtedly have heard of Alan Turing - the father of
modern computing, encryption and AI. But he also had a
philosophical side as well, known for asking such
probing questions as to how things are judged to have
the ability to reason. His 'Turing Test' is
essentially a method of determining, initially
designed for computers but it really can apply to just
about anything. For instance, a dog may display some
various animated emotions and responses to stimuli,
but would undoubtedly fail the Turing Test.

So maybe people or 'sentient beings' should have to
pass a Turing type test before they get rights?
(negative rights anyway) Of course I'm with Michael E.
in that I wouldn't want to see the government
administering the test, but this procedure could have
a huge impact in the courts. Would a rock then be able
to lay claim to owning property as easily as a
deaf-mute? How about teenagers, aliens and robots? And
what about the potential or likelyhood to pass the
test in the future, as in the case of the fetus? Just
a thought...

David Rhodes
Libertarian Candidate for State Senate, Dist. 3.