Jerusalem's Temple Mount
The previous post made a bold claim: that land rent would solve the question of Israel and Palestine. Let's apply this to the hardest question of all, the Temple Mount. The Temple Mount is highly desired by Jews and Moslems. If only one group wanted it, the price would be very low, because nobody else would desire it - they would be happy to let some caretakers keep it. But the presence of a competing group raises its value. In other words, the competing group created its value! So they own that value. Nobody can prove who created the temple, but it is easy to prove who created its rental value.
The beauty of this system is that it is objective. And it removes history and religion and politics from the equation. Who created the current dollar value of the Mount? That is all we have to ask.
posted by Chris Tolworthy at 3:25 PM
2 Comments:
This puzzles me. The current dollar value of the Mount is strictly a function of its desireability by two separate and competing organizations. How does one decide "who created the value" when the value is not based on physical structure, but meaning?
Good question! Strictly speaking, the value is not created by the desirability of the object, but by the desire to trade it. There can be no dollar value without trade.
So the owner who refuses to trade cannot be said to create any value. All the value is created by the outsider who comes along and suggests trade.
Of course, everything changes if both sides are willing to trade (i.e. cooperate!) - then we have a dynamic market then all kinds of interesting things become possible.
This story has three morals.
First, land rent makes intransigence far too expensive. We are forced to cooperate where land is concerned.
Second, to create a market value, you must be prepared to trade.
Third, if you want complete control over your creation, you should not tie it to something you cannot control, like land. Moses had the right idea: movable tabernacles are best.
Post a Comment
<< Home