Page 16 of 68 FirstFirst ... 614151617182666 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 480 of 2026

Thread: What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

  1. #451
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    I have provided the proof that landowning is a[n] [Evil] [M]onopoly.
    Uh, by quoting Smith?

    You have been destroyed.
    Uh, because you quoted Smith?

    you know it,
    Well, I do know that you quoted Smith. So I'll give you that one.

    and you have no answers
    Actually, my answer was to make fun of Smith. Paradox! Paradox! Whatever shall we do?

    Anyway, if we can prove things via argument from authority now, then that changes everything! Like, the nature of the universe.
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 09-24-2011 at 12:08 AM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #452
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    People can't be enslaved if [you hand out land-rent-funded freebies to them]
    Wouldn't this just be giving your slave a stipend?

  4. #453
    Quote Originally Posted by smokemonsc View Post
    I find no purpose in continuing this discussion as you are not being intellectually honest.
    As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
    You refuse to acknowledge that land increases due to natural and man made reasons.
    Land CANNOT increase due to "man made reasons." Land can increase for natural reasons -- the earth itself formed for natural reasons, unless you think God made it -- but that does not alter the fact that its supply is fixed in the economic sense: it cannot be increased by labor, and does not respond to price.
    You equate surface area of the Earth to "Land" which I do not
    The earth's surface is one form of land in the economic sense.
    - and 'any self respecting economist' understands that land equals dirt, dry mass, usable surfaces upon which to build.
    Please quote an economist who says "land equals dirt, dry mass, usable surfaces upon which to build."
    Oceanic area does not constitute the economic term 'land' and you know it.
    Yes, the area of the oceans is considered land in economics. Land is the entire physical universe other than human beings and the products of their labor.

  5. #454
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Wouldn't this just be giving your slave a stipend?
    You have again altered what I wrote and claimed to be quoting me. You engage in such utter and consistent dishonesty, yet you claim a right to be treated with courtesy. Sorry, no.

    I don't advocate giving people money. The only "freebies" land rent would fund is security of the equal human rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor. Rights are something people rightly have just by existing, without having to pay government or a landowner for them. The proposed universal individual land tax exemption is no more a freebie than the universal individual income tax exemption. You would simply have a right to the liberty to use enough land to live on, for free. If you want to deprive others of more than that, make just compensation for taking more than your share. How hard is that to understand?

    Now you will contrive some way to avoid understanding it.

  6. #455
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Uh, by quoting Smith?
    Yes.
    Uh, because you quoted Smith?
    Yes. He was a great economist, and is a reliable source as to what economists mean by "monopoly." Unlike, e.g., you and the other propertarian sock puppets.
    Anyway, if we can prove things via argument from authority now, then that changes everything! Like, the nature of the universe.
    Quoting expert sources on their terminology is not an argument from authority, sorry.

  7. #456
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    The only "freebie..." land rent would fund is security of the equal [except for land monopolization] human rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor.
    Security. Yes, that sounds like a "freebie" to me. Someone has to pay for security. Previously I think you mentioned roads, education, "etc." (that "etc." is the scariest of all) as things the nation-state should do, right? Anyway, here's what I'm getting at:

    Wrong solution:
    [Landowner (enslaver)]...........................--> [Money] -->......................................[non-landowner (slave)]

    Actually just solution, assuming Georgism to be true:
    [non-landowner (normal human)]..............<<[Justice & Mutual Harmony between them]>>..............[also-non-landowner (normal human)]

    That movement of money does not erase the Existential Injustice of enabling land monopolization. No more than paying a slave a salary erases the injustice there. The slave just wants to quit. I just want my nature-given Manhattan apartment. Neither of us are going to take your hush-money. The land-owner/slave-holders are violating our rights, they are murdering us by keeping us from drinking their Evita water, and just, just,.... we're not going to take it any more!

    Land-slaves of the World, Unite!
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 09-24-2011 at 12:46 AM.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #457
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Yes. He was a great economist, and is a reliable source as to what economists mean by "monopoly."
    Ouch!! Stop destroying me!

  10. #458
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Because Adam Smith, of course, is economics. Smith was a total genius. We should agree with everything he ever said.

    If I ever have some water, I'm going to hunt down Adam Smith and sell it to him for you-(should)-know-what. Oh yeah, Smith was a genius.
    Naw, that would be Rothbard.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  11. #459
    Quote Originally Posted by steve005 View Post
    more land being created all the time. some just rose out of the sea not too long ago look it up
    *Sigh* If this thread goes to 100 pages it is due to posts like this.^

    The term "Land" refers to the whole material universe, exclusive of people and their products. Not the creation of human labor, yet essential to labor, it is the raw material from which all wealth is fashioned. It includes not only soil and minerals, but water, air, natural vegetation and wildlife, and all natural opportunities -- even those yet to be discovered.

    http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Land_includes.htm
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  12. #460
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Yes, but I don't. Since you offer no particular reason that your definition is superior, I shall continue with mine.
    Alright continue with your ignorance.



    At least as much as required to make it clearly recognizable to others that you're claiming it. For instance, to claim a rock, you could put it into your pocket. That would make it pretty clear that it's yours, as the convention is well-established that "things in someone's pocket are not up-for-grabs". To claim a radio frequency, you could begin broadcasting on it. If you wanted to claim it for purposes of keeping it clear of transmission, perhaps for some scientific reason, your job of claiming it might be more involved or costly. Conventions arise. Order out of chaos. People respect the conventions and the claims of others, because they want their property to be likewise respected.
    There are many individuals who purchase land and hold title to it without ever stepping onto the land. Is this just?


    Yet you want to continue the injustice forever by having the government enable the monopolization of land. "Just pay a little fee, sir, for the privilege of ENSLAVING HUMANITY!! There we go, all paid up, here's your receipt and have a nice day."
    Except the LVT ensures such a thing would not happen while your system surely would. Refer to the freakin article!
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  13. #461
    Quote Originally Posted by smokemonsc View Post
    I find no purpose in continuing this discussion as you are not being intellectually honest.
    Funny. I see it the other way around.

    You refuse to acknowledge that land increases due to natural and man made reasons.
    I refuse to acknowledge it because it simply isn't true.

    "The term "Land" refers to the whole material universe, exclusive of people and their products. Not the creation of human labor, yet essential to labor, it is the raw material from which all wealth is fashioned. It includes not only soil and minerals, but water, air, natural vegetation and wildlife, and all natural opportunities -- even those yet to be discovered."
    ~ Robert V. Andelson and James M. Dawsey
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/An...FWTPL_syn.html


    You equate surface area of the Earth to "Land" which I do not - and 'any self respecting economist' understands that land equals dirt, dry mass, usable surfaces upon which to build. Oceanic area does not constitute the economic term 'land' and you know it.
    Quit embarrassing yourself please.

    In economics, land comprises all naturally occurring resources whose supply is inherently fixed. Examples are any and all particular geographical locations, mineral deposits, and even geostationary orbit locations and portions of the electromagnetic spectrum.
    http://www.enotes.com/topic/Land_%28economics%29

    Good for you in acknowledging that land ownership is not a monopoly.
    I acknowledged no such thing. I said I was 'humoring' you. Land ownership is a monopoly. When you privately control a piece of land you monopolize it because no one else can use it. Ever heard of the game MONOPOLY? What do you control in that game? The land and its resources.

    Maybe soon you'll realize next that your next preposterous claim that no one ever sells land (especially good land) is also 100% - false.
    Claiming that I made such a claim is preposterous.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  14. #462
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    Alright continue with your ignorance.
    Since I am not unaware of your definition, rather I disagree with it, it would be more fitting to invite me to continue with my disagreement.

    There are many individuals who purchase land and hold title to it without ever stepping onto the land. Is this just?
    To initially establish ownership of unowned property, never coming into contact with or interacting with the matter or abstraction you wish to claim would be highly problematic. It likely would be an insurmountable problem, though perhaps some clever person here could come up with a hypothetical wherein such a claim could be valid. After the property has passed from unowned status into owned status, then yes, absolutely it may be traded or given to another party who may never actually have contact or interaction with it. This second owner's claim would still be totally legitimate, just as if I bought a Twinkie but never ate it, saving it for Zombie Apocalypse.

  15. #463
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Someone, you mean. Mises Institute has probably never received any money from the Rockefeller Foundation.
    According to the article Mises Institute did, along with Mises himself.

    Many readers may be surprised to learn the extent to which the Graduate Institute
    and then Mises himself in the years immediately after he came to United States
    were kept afloat financially through generous grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.
    In fact, for the first years of Mises’s life in the United States, before his appointment
    as a visiting professor in the Graduate School of Business Administration at New York
    University (NYU) in 1945, he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants
    from the Rockefeller Foundation.

    http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/t..._6_ebeling.pdf
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  16. #464
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Security. Yes, that sounds like a "freebie" to me.
    Security of RIGHTS. If you believe in human rights (you obviously don't), they are something you get for free.
    Someone has to pay for security.
    True. That's why we need taxes. And those who benefit the most from that security should pay the most to maintain it:

    "The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation, is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists, what is called the equality or inequality of taxation." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
    Previously I think you mentioned roads, education, "etc." (that "etc." is the scariest of all) as things the nation-state should do, right?
    States that do those things are more successful than states that don't, but the exact extent of government spending is for the people to decide democratically. There is certainly a case to be made for any spending that pays for itself through increased aggregate land rent (i.e., that makes living and working within the state more advantageous than living and working elsewhere).
    Anyway, here's what I'm getting at:

    Wrong solution:
    [Landowner (enslaver)]...........................--> [Money] -->......................................[non-landowner (slave)]
    I've already explained why that is not an accurate or honest characterization of LVT.
    Actually just solution, assuming Georgism to be true:
    [non-landowner (normal human)]..............<<[Justice & Mutual Harmony between them]>>..............[also-non-landowner (normal human)]
    Yes, well, justice and mutual harmony would be great, but some people (call them "landowners") want forcibly to deprive others of their rights to liberty without making just compensation. That is not compatible with justice and mutual harmony.
    That movement of money does not erase the Existential Injustice of enabling land monopolization.
    Yes, actually, it does when combined with the other measures described, because the landowner obtains no unjust advantage, the landless suffer no unjust disadvantage, and the equal rights of all are restored, secured and reconciled.
    No more than paying a slave a salary erases the injustice there. The slave just wants to quit.
    If the salary is sufficient to erase the slave owner's unjust advantage, and the slave can use it to secure his rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of his labor, as government would be expected to use LVT revenue, then yes, actually, it does erase the injustice.
    I just want my nature-given Manhattan apartment.
    But of course, you are just lying again. The apartment was not nature-given, and what you want is to deprive others of their liberty to use what nature DID give, without making just compensation.
    Neither of us are going to take your hush-money.
    Incomprehensible.
    The land-owner/slave-holders are violating our rights, they are murdering us by keeping us from drinking their Evita water, and just, just,.... we're not going to take it any more!
    <yawn> Let me know if you ever want to address any actual facts or logic.
    Last edited by Roy L; 09-24-2011 at 04:37 PM.



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #465
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    To initially establish ownership of unowned property,
    If it is unowned, it is not property. This is a frequent propertarian self-contradiction.
    After the property has passed from unowned status into owned status,
    Same logical contradiction. It can't be property unless it is already owned.

  19. #466
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Since I am not unaware of your definition, rather I disagree with it, it would be more fitting to invite me to continue with my disagreement.
    I said its ignorant because your definition flies in the face of the very people who influenced classical liberal thinking. Point to me one quote from Locke, Smith, Paine, or Jefferson that supports your definition.

    Henry George simply took the classical liberal distinction of land from property and made it central to his idea.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  20. #467
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    This is not debatable. Land is fixed. Scientific fact.
    Boy you georgists really have a hard time accepting geology don't you?

    There is an infinite supply of 'land', we just have to be able to get there and terraform it, that's all.
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  21. #468
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    I said its ignorant because your definition flies in the face of the very people who influenced classical liberal thinking.
    I am comfortable in saying that flying in the face of persons with whom you disagree is not, in fact, what ignorance is. Perhaps you have an alternative definition of ignorance as well.

  22. #469
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    According to the article Mises Institute did, along with Mises himself.

    [I]Many readers may be surprised to learn the extent to which the Graduate Institute
    The Mises Institute is totally different from the Graduate Institute, and was not founded until many years later, after Mises' death.

  23. #470
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    No more than paying a slave a salary erases the injustice there. The slave just wants to quit.
    If the salary is sufficient to erase the slave owner's unjust advantage, [specifically, at least $35,329.82 annually] then yes, actually, it does erase the injustice
    I think maybe I have a "right-and-wrong" gene that you just don't appear to have inherited.

    Pay the Slaves
    (to the tune of Heal the World)

    Pay the slaves,
    Make this a better place,
    For you, and for me, and
    The entire human race,
    There are
    People slaving,
    If you care enough about freedom,
    Pay them a living wage,
    Pay them a living wage!

    Pay the slaves,
    make it a better place,
    .....
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 09-24-2011 at 12:52 PM.

  24. #471
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    I think maybe I have a "right-and-wrong" gene that you just don't appear to have inherited
    You too huh?

    Whether it's willful ignorance or ignorant willfulness I don't know, but there is something lacking.

    I like how Robert Heinlein said it:

    Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  25. #472
    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamC View Post
    Boy you georgists really have a hard time accepting geology don't you?

    There is an infinite supply of 'land', we just have to be able to get there and terraform it, that's all.
    Refer to the economic definition of land I just post.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #473
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    The Mises Institute is totally different from the Graduate Institute, and was not founded until many years later, after Mises' death.
    My apologies, didnt notice it meant Graduate Institute of International Studies. Still, Mises received funding from that Rockefeller Foundation which doesn't sit too well with me.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  28. #474
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    This is not debatable. Land is fixed. Scientific fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    Refer to the economic definition of land I just post.
    Learn geology and planetology for scientific facts, not economics.

    Free land is everywhere, it's a willingness to cooperate as a species and go get it that's the problem, not lack of taxes.
    Last edited by WilliamC; 09-24-2011 at 01:42 PM.
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  29. #475
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    I am comfortable in saying that flying in the face of persons with whom you disagree is not, in fact, what ignorance is. Perhaps you have an alternative definition of ignorance as well.
    Not giving an alternative definition. I just believe you were ignorant of property and land as the classical liberals defined them. You choose to create your own definition of land and property. If you prefer me to call it stupidity I could do that. I decided to use a nicer word.
    Last edited by redbluepill; 09-24-2011 at 01:44 PM.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  30. #476
    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamC View Post
    Learn geology and planetology for scientific facts, not economics.

    Free land is everywhere, it's a willingness to cooperate as a species and go get it that's the problem, not lack of taxes.
    Alright, what is the geological/planetological definition of land?
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  31. #477
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    Alright, what is the geological/planetological definition of land?
    Well Mars has lots of it, and it is within our technology to go there and start trying to colonize it.

    If we didn't spend trillions upon trillions of dollars on weapons that is.

    Land is simply resources that can be used with sufficient technology to sustain and propagate life.

    Therefore what passes as land changes the better our technology is.

    The famous historian Will Durant recognized this fact when he stated

    "Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice."
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  32. #478
    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamC View Post
    Well Mars has lots of it, and it is within our technology to go there and start trying to colonize it.

    If we didn't spend trillions upon trillions of dollars on weapons that is.

    Land is simply resources that can be used with sufficient technology to sustain and propagate life.

    Therefore what passes as land changes the better our technology is.

    The famous historian Will Durant recognized this fact when he stated

    "Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice."
    We're not going to have a significant population on Mars anytime soon. There are also practically no natural resources essential for human survival there. You have not proven that land is limitless. Please provide a link and scientific definition.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  33. #479
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    We're not going to have a significant population on Mars anytime soon. There are also practically no natural resources essential for human survival there. You have not proven that land is limitless. Please provide a link and scientific definition.
    You're just short-sighted, that's all.

    "The whole wide world, an endless Universe, yet we keep looking through the eyeglass in reverse."

    If we don't expand off this planet we're dead as a species, so any solution that doesn't take this into account is no solution at all.
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  34. #480
    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamC View Post
    You're just short-sighted, that's all.

    "The whole wide world, an endless Universe, yet we keep looking through the eyeglass in reverse."

    If we don't expand off this planet we're dead as a species, so any solution that doesn't take this into account is no solution at all.
    Not short sighted. I'm talking about definitions. You're going off on a tangent about outer space.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 16 of 68 FirstFirst ... 614151617182666 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Mike Lee: Public Land vs. Government Land
    By TaftFan in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 06-29-2017, 04:54 PM
  2. Bernie Sanders- This Land is Your Land
    By Origanalist in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-29-2016, 09:16 PM
  3. BLM Anthem? "This Land Is Their Land"
    By Occam's Banana in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-15-2014, 10:46 AM
  4. Land yacht? Try Land Ocean Liner!
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-23-2010, 05:32 PM
  5. A Man and his Land.
    By TomtheTinker in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-16-2010, 02:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •