What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Roy L]

My point is that I highly doubt you speak this passionately against the sales tax or income tax. National Sales Tax threads never get this heated.

True, and it's the same on the other side, too: communists and socialists never attack capitalists or propertarians half so viciously and dishonestly as they attack geoists. The servants of injustice know their real enemies are not the servants of opposing injustices.

And no, don't blame Roy when he has to hold his own against continuous attacks from numerous posters who dont do their own research.

Lack of research is the least of it. Refusal to think, refusal to know self-evident and indisputable facts, the relentless lies and dishonesty: those are the real core of opposition to LVT.

[helmuth_hubener]

It is indisputably true. No state --> no landowning.

The (left) anarchists, of course, felt that no state meant no property. Since private property is the root of all human conflict and most human ills, it must be abolished, and since the state is the institution which enables property ownership to occur, just abolish the state and all is well.

Marx was more sophisticated and pointed out that property is engrained in the bourgeois culture and would continue even in the absence of a state. The idea of, and long-standing respect for, private property would have to be aggressively stamped out (and who better to do the stamping than the state?). Just abolish the state and you don't solve the problem -- everyone would still respect private property.

Likewise with the specific type of property ever and always on your mind: property in natural resources (aka "land"). Even without a state, people can, have, and do establish and respect property rights in a multitudinous array of natural resources. That can be established by case study after case study. Historical and contemporary fact shows land ownership arising without any state. Take that as you will, but it's definitely fact.

[heavenlyboy34]

This, from a creature so ignorant, irrational, miseducated and dishonest that he cites the execrable Hans-Hermann Hoppe???!?!?!

ROTFL!!!!!

"execrable"? Your maleducated gaffes and grasping at straws are more amusing every day. Hoppe has pounded the arguments of Statists into dust. You have brought up nothing in your pro-state/anti-(land)property arguments that Hoppe hasn't refuted. Hoppe began his career as a Marxist and knows both sides of the land-ownership debate.

You need to read The Economics and Ethics Of Private Property. (and comprehend it, which is your weak area in researching the pro-landownership side of the debate)

[Roy L]

Microsecession FTW! However, it doesn't seem like RoyL would have this. Landowners everywhere and on every continent would need to fear RoyL's regime's wrath if he ever got his way.

I have no moral problem with secession. I just don't think it can work on a scale smaller than city-states. And even for them, in most cases the nation state is too strong a competitor.

[Roy L]

"execrable"? Your maleducated gaffes and grasping at straws are more amusing every day.

You have never refuted anything I have said, nor will you ever be doing so.

Hoppe has pounded the arguments of Statists into dust.

No, Hoppe has merely made a fool of himself and cruelly exposed his own intellectual, scholastic, and moral deficiencies.

You have brought up nothing in your pro-state/anti-(land)property arguments that Hoppe hasn't refuted.

LOL! Hoppe hasn't refuted anything. He just spews stupid lies, much as the propertarian ninnies have done here. If you think he has any sort of argument I have not refuted yet, quote it here.

[Roy L]

Even without a state, people can, have, and do establish and respect property rights in a multitudinous array of natural resources.

Nope. Never happened. They'll have property in slaves before they'll have property in natural resources.

That can be established by case study after case study.

Nope. There has been no such case study, and never will be.

Historical and contemporary fact shows land ownership arising without any state.

Nope. Never happened except among people who already had that institution as part of their culture, like settlers from landowning societies forcibly appropriating land from non-landowning societies. Landowning has often been transplanted from states; but it does not arise naturally without states.

Take that as you will, but it's definitely fact.

Nope. It's a fabrication.

[Steven Douglas]

It's not defensible, as we have seen proved in this thread, and it is indisputably a privilege because it is a legal entitlement to profit by the uncompensated violation of others' rights, as also proved in this thread.

Yeah, yeah, back full circle to arguing from your geoist premises, with Roy as the lone arbiter of what is proved, indisputability established, or thoroughly refuted.

So let it be written by Roy, so let it be conclusively proved.

[heavenlyboy34]

You have never refuted anything I have said, nor will you ever be doing so.

No, Hoppe has merely made a fool of himself and cruelly exposed his own intellectual, scholastic, and moral deficiencies.

LOL! Hoppe hasn't refuted anything. He just spews stupid lies, much as the propertarian ninnies have done here. If you think he has any sort of argument I have not refuted yet, quote it here.

You claim to know Hoppe's arguments, but can't cite any "errors" in the aforementioned book-one of the most famous tomes on the subject? Your blatant lack of opposition research again indicates that your schooling was a waste of time.

[redbluepill]

Ha, ha! No, by all means, don't blame Roy. Roy is a paragon of Rightness and Brilliance which we all should emulate, when we're not shielding our eyes.

Despite all the name-calling and bickering that is taking place on both sides Roy has brought up many great points while everyone else beats around the bush. You guys are proving yourselves to be apologists for the status quo.

By the way, Redblue, there was a conversation you and I were having which you dropped. That conversation was somewhat interesting.

I don't monitor this forum let alone this thread every single day. If there is something I miss then repost it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Despite all the name-calling and bickering that is taking place on both sides Roy has brought up many great points while everyone else beats around the bush. You guys are proving yourselves to be apologists for the status quo.

I haven't stated anything "status quo". I am vigorously against the status quo. If anything, Roy advocates the Statists' status quo.

I answer Roy's points routinely, but, like Conza, he pretends they aren't valid because he doesn't like them. (see post 1372 for just one example) Roy acts like a childish troll, and I treat him accordingly.