Page 48 of 68 FirstFirst ... 38464748495058 ... LastLast
Results 1,411 to 1,440 of 2026

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

  1. #1411
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Roy has realized that he can't win so now he resorts to personal insults of Stephen's name.

    It's the first obvious sign that even he realizes that his arguments are so baseless.
    This^^
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #1412
    WOw- over 1400 replies on this thread so far! Who is winning?

  4. #1413
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    WOw- over 1400 replies on this thread so far! Who is winning?
    Roy. Obviously.

  5. #1414
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    WOw- over 1400 replies on this thread so far! Who is winning?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2f7-...eature=related

  6. #1415
    Roy recognizes ownership only in terms of third party (state/societal) recognition, and even enforcement, which he believes are required for "ownership" to exist. He sees only one legal definition of ownership, while ignoring the very object of that definition, as having any bearing whatsoever on what it actually means, by common root definition, to actually "own" something.

    own
    v. owned, own·ing, owns
    v.tr.
    1.
    a. To have or possess as property: owns a chain of restaurants.
    b. To have control over: For a time, enemy planes owned the skies.
    transitive verb
    1
    a : to have or hold as property : possess
    b : to have power or mastery over <wanted to own his own life>
    ownership
    verb (used with object)
    3. to have or hold as one's own; possess: They own several homes.
    ownership
    1: the state, relation, or fact of being an owner
    So while the common and well understood root definitions of "own" and "ownership" are quite clear, in Roy's mind these are irrelevant, since he is arguing ownership only as it relates to its legal definition, and only how that relates to state and societal recognition - as if that was the only definition, and therefore rule. In other words, ownership is not possible without there first being a "right" of ownership, which is in turn always based on societal recognition.

    Thus, the lack of state or societal involvement is why a dung beetle, cannot be considered an "owner" of a piece of dung, but only a "possessor" or "controller" -- even though these are the precise definitions of "own" and "owner"!

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Or should I just take you at your cretinous word, and observe that if government simply expropriates all privately owned land by force, ownership would pass to the government, the erstwhile "owners'" rights to it would cease to exist, and they would have no grounds for complaint?
    Very slippery of Roy here. Roy is left with a logical conundrum, because now that he is trapped within a narrow legal definition ownership, there is the inconvenient fact that in the past, slavery, or "right of ownership of people" was indeed "recognized" by society (and by a large majority, no less). But did that constitute a "theft"?

    If government expropriated all privately owned land by force, ownership by definition WOULD pass to the government. The erstwhile private ownership "legal rights" would indeed cease to exist, but not necessarily their claims to the those rights, or grounds THEY FELT they had for reclaiming them - which is to say their "moral" rights, as each individual saw and held them, which would exist separately. (e.g., do Irish, Native Americans and Nepalese feel they have still have claims on what they consider their own lands, their own sovereignty?)

    Furthermore, if abolitionists had in fact proposed a transfer of title, or "right of possession and control" of slaves to the state, whereby the state took over control of slaves, and became the beneficiary of slave labor, that would indeed have entailed a "transfer of ownership". However, this was never the abolitionists' aim. For them it was not question of whether title, or right of ownership (possession and control) of people should be publicly or privately retained. For them it was that such a right should not exist at all for any entity, public or private, individually or collectively. Thus, slaves were simply set free, as all rights of ownership were eventually and completely abolished.

    That is actually where Roy's version of LVT falls apart. He wants "legal control" of lands to evolve to the state without calling it "ownership" - logical impossibility.

    Despite the above, one mechanism that was available for ending slavery was for the state, or the people themselves, to simply buy slaves - which would have entailed a transfer of legal ownership, publicly and/or privately, without any challenge to the moral legitimacy of ownership or any title transfers - and then simply set them free. In fact, Lincoln could have done this with his precious Greenbacks, at a far lesser cost of lives and wealth lost as a result of the Civil War, and possibly avoided war altogether. Future "new" ownership could have been normatively prohibited without attacking the value of present ownership extant, which had been tolerated and recognized to date.

    The only fact of ownership other than a legal fact -- which I have already proved is irrelevant to this discussion -- is its societal recognition.
    Here, once again, Roy wants everything trapped into circular reasoning, as he attempts to confine the arguments to only one narrow legal definition of "ownership", or "right of" possession and control" (rather than mere possession and control, which is all that is required to "own"). This makes his preferred (and only) definition based on societal recognition, as the sole basis of ownership. Thus, it is not possible, in Roy's mind, for anyone on Earth to have had "ownership" of ANYTHING - EVER - without the prior existence of a state. Indeed, once the words "owner" or "ownership" are invoked, Roy will instantly pounce on it as meaningless outside the bounds of his preferred (legal) definition, to wit:

    That is not factual ownership, as already proved, because theft effects a transfer of possession and control but not of ownership.
    ...possession and control. aka "own", according to standard dictionary definitions.

    With this convenient but fallacious play on semantics, it is not until a "state" develops that "ownership" can even come into being - as "factual ownership" (which Roy sees as synonymous with "legal right of ownership" only) can ONLY be established by a combination of state enforcement and societal recognition -- by Roy's preferred definition. Thus, anyone who might have exercised mere "possession and control" of anything in the past - animal, vegetable or mineral - were possessors, controllers and/or occupiers only. Never "owners", without state enforcement and societal recognition.

    There is no form of ownership based on possession and control, as proved above.
    Thoroughly refuted, and proved otherwise.

    Forcible animal possession is not ownership, as already proved.
    Also thoroughly refuted and proved otherwise.

    You believe that forcible possession and control confers ownership.
    Correct. It certainly does, by definition. What it does not necessarily confer is a "right of ownership", legally or morally speaking - those are abstract normative constructs that relate to ultimate "rights" of possession and control - not possession and control itself, which is ownership, otherwise defined as:

    "The state, relation, or fact of having, or having possession or control over, or power or mastery over..." (combining definitions of own, owns, owner, and ownership)

    Ownership of slaves was never a matter of forcible possession and control, but always of societal recognition of title.
    Ah, then the slaves were free to walk away, but didn't know it. Silly slaves, they could have ignored the meaningless "societal recognition of title" and simply walked away - since "ownership" of them was never a matter of forcible possession and control.

    Nope. Enslavement requires a societal recognition and enforcement of the slave's status. That is why slaves cannot free themselves by just leaving their owners' possession and control. They have to leave the SOCIETY that considers them property.
    Ah, you finally got it. The "enforcement" part, so critical and at the core of ALL ownership, which is always based on "forcible animal control", even when delegated to others in a "save my spot for me, k?" kind of way.

    I know you can't face the fact that your arguments have been thoroughly destroyed, Roy, but others can see it plainly enough. Is that because they're all lying evil apologists? Perhaps. I doubt it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak9juZMO0A4

    Sorry, Roy L. Achilles. Limp away.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 12-26-2011 at 09:14 PM.

  7. #1416
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Roy has realized that he can't win so now he resorts to personal insults of Stephen's name.

    It's the first obvious sign that even he realizes that his arguments are so baseless.
    Typical non sequitur.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #1417
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Roy recognizes ownership only in terms of third party (state/societal) recognition, and even enforcement, which he believes are required for "ownership" to exist. He sees only one legal definition of ownership, while ignoring the very object of that definition, as having any bearing whatsoever on what it actually means, by common root definition, to actually "own" something.
    Gibberish.
    So while the common and well understood root definitions of "own" and "ownership" are quite clear,
    But not to Steven, who believes that theft transfers ownership.
    in Roy's mind these are irrelevant, since he is arguing ownership only as it relates to its legal definition,
    Lie.
    and only how that relates to state and societal recognition - as if that was the only definition, and therefore rule.
    It is the RELEVANT definition, the one that does not set up an equivocation fallacy.
    In other words, ownership is not possible without there first being a "right" of ownership, which is in turn always based on societal recognition.
    Or the logic of natural right.
    Thus, the lack of state or societal involvement is why a dung beetle, cannot be considered an "owner" of a piece of dung, but only a "possessor" or "controller" -- even though these are the precise definitions of "own" and "owner"!
    No, they are not.
    Very slippery of Roy here.
    No, just logically correct and indisputable.
    Roy is left with a logical conundrum, because now that he is trapped within a narrow legal definition ownership,
    I specifically stated that the legal definition was irrelevant to this discussion.
    there is the inconvenient fact that in the past, slavery, or "right of ownership of people" was indeed "recognized" by society (and by a large majority, no less). But did that constitute a "theft"?
    It constituted ownership. Try to keep your eye on the ball.
    If government expropriated all privately owned land by force, ownership by definition WOULD pass to the government. The erstwhile private ownership "legal rights" would indeed cease to exist, but not necessarily their claims to the those rights, or grounds THEY FELT they had for reclaiming them - which is to say their "moral" rights, as each individual saw and held them, which would exist separately. (e.g., do Irish, Native Americans and Nepalese feel they have still have claims on what they consider their own lands, their own sovereignty?)
    Wrong. By your "logic" they HAVE no moral right, as ownership is defined solely by possession and control.
    Furthermore, if abolitionists had in fact proposed a transfer of title, or "right of possession and control" of slaves to the state, whereby the state took over control of slaves, and became the beneficiary of slave labor, that would indeed have entailed a "transfer of ownership". However, this was never the abolitionists' aim. For them it was not question of whether title, or right of ownership (possession and control) of people should be publicly or privately retained. For them it was that such a right should not exist at all for any entity, public or private, individually or collectively. Thus, slaves were simply set free, as all rights of ownership were eventually and completely abolished.

    That is actually where Roy's version of LVT falls apart. He wants "legal control" of lands to evolve to the state without calling it "ownership" - logical impossibility.
    No, that's false. States indisputably ALREADY HAVE legal control of land without owning it. They just exercise that control to provide a welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners rather than to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all their citizens.

    Ownership is a bundle of four rights: control, benefit, exclusion, and disposition. The state is only rightly a trustee administering possession and use of land, not its owner, as it cannot rightly dispose of land by, e.g., selling it. That would violate the rights of all the future generations who would otherwise be at liberty to use it, contradicting the state's raison d'etre.
    Despite the above, one mechanism that was available for ending slavery was for the state, or the people themselves, to simply buy slaves - which would have entailed a transfer of legal ownership, publicly and/or privately, without any challenge to the moral legitimacy of ownership or any title transfers - and then simply set them free. In fact, Lincoln could have done this with his precious Greenbacks, at a far lesser cost of lives and wealth lost as a result of the Civil War, and possibly avoided war altogether.
    Funny how apologists for privilege and injustice think the responsibility for avoiding the Civil War rested with those who sought to end a massive atrocity, and not with those who were committing it.
    Future "new" ownership could have been normatively prohibited without attacking the value of present ownership extant, which had been tolerated and recognized to date.
    I long ago ceased to be surprised when propertarian apologists for landowner privilege propose that slavery would more rightly have been ended by someone paying slave owners market value for their slaves' rights to liberty than by simply voiding all deeds of slave ownership. I am still appalled and disgusted, but no longer surprised. By that "logic," government should not simply void taxi medallions -- privileges that IT CREATED for the unearned profit of medallion holders, remember -- but pay all the medallion holders market value for them, as compensation for declining to continue giving them that subsidy!
    Here, once again, Roy wants everything trapped into circular reasoning, as he attempts to confine the arguments to only one narrow legal definition of "ownership", or "right of" possession and control" (rather than mere possession and control, which is all that is required to "own").
    Lie, as already proved: theft transfers possession and control. It does not transfer ownership. Steven is proved wrong.
    This makes his preferred (and only) definition based on societal recognition, as the sole basis of ownership. Thus, it is not possible, in Roy's mind, for anyone on Earth to have had "ownership" of ANYTHING - EVER - without the prior existence of a state.
    Bait and switch, Steven, very dishonest. Society existed before states, and the state is not society. You just dishonestly substituted "state" for "societal."
    Indeed, once the words "owner" or "ownership" are invoked, Roy will instantly pounce on it as meaningless outside the bounds of his preferred (legal) definition, to wit:
    ...possession and control. aka "own", according to standard dictionary definitions.
    You still haven't provided a source for your definitions, and even if you had you would be equivocating. Why can't you ever remember that theft does not transfer ownership, and that fact PROVES YOU WRONG?
    With this convenient but fallacious play on semantics,
    It is indisputable fact and logic, not semantics. It is not a matter of semantics that theft does not effect a transfer of ownership. It is a fact of objective reality. And it proves you wrong.
    it is not until a "state" develops that "ownership" can even come into being
    Lie. States arise largely to defend ownership of products of labor.
    - as "factual ownership" (which Roy sees as synonymous with "legal right of ownership" only)
    Lie.
    can ONLY be established by a combination of state enforcement and societal recognition -- by Roy's preferred definition.
    State enforcement is the formal codification of societal recognition. The latter has priority.
    Thus, anyone who might have exercised mere "possession and control" of anything in the past - animal, vegetable or mineral - were possessors, controllers and/or occupiers only. Never "owners", without state enforcement and societal recognition.
    You again lie about what I have plainly written.
    Thoroughly refuted, and proved otherwise.
    Also thoroughly refuted and proved otherwise.
    <yawn> No.
    Correct. It certainly does, by definition.
    Refuted above. Theft does not effect a transfer of ownership, and that fact indisputably proves you wrong.
    What it does not necessarily confer is a "right of ownership", legally or morally speaking - those are abstract normative constructs that relate to ultimate "rights" of possession and control - not possession and control itself, which is ownership, otherwise defined as:
    Self-contradictory gibberish.
    "The state, relation, or fact of having, or having possession or control over, or power or mastery over..." (combining definitions of own, owns, owner, and ownership)
    Equivocation fallacy.

    AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T GIVEN A SOURCE.
    Ah, then the slaves were free to walk away, but didn't know it.
    They would have been, if your definition of ownership were correct.
    Silly slaves, they could have ignored the meaningless "societal recognition of title"
    HUH?? I am the one who understands that societal recognition is key to ownership, remember? YOU are the one who claims it is meaningless.
    and simply walked away - since "ownership" of them was never a matter of forcible possession and control.
    Right. Their capture and transportation was a matter of forcible possession and control, but once they were under deeds of ownership, the fetters came off and they were PHYSICALLY pretty much at liberty. They just couldn't get away, because law enforcement was on their owners' side.
    Ah, you finally got it.
    But you didn't.
    The "enforcement" part, so critical and at the core of ALL ownership, which is always based on "forcible animal control", even when delegated to others in a "save my spot for me, k?" kind of way.
    Nope. It clearly isn't, as theft transfers forcible animal possession, but not ownership. That fact proves you wrong.
    I know you can't face the fact that your arguments have been thoroughly destroyed, Roy, but others can see it plainly enough.
    Silliness.
    Is that because they're all lying evil apologists? Perhaps. I doubt it.
    I don't, any more than I doubt that slave owners thought the abolitionists' arguments had been thoroughly destroyed. Those slave owners were in fact lying, evil apologists for the privilege and injustice of slavery, just as those who contrive fallacious, absurd, dishonest and STUPID arguments against LVT are in fact lying, evil apologists for landowner privilege. The main difference is that slave owners were actually benefiting from slavery, while almost all of those who rationalize landowner privilege are themselves being harmed by it, almost certainly including you.
    Last edited by Roy L; 12-27-2011 at 04:16 AM.

  10. #1418
    Roy, merely stating things like "gibberish, lie, logically incorrect, indisputable, etc.," -- those don't actually count as arguments or refutations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    I specifically stated that the legal definition was irrelevant to this discussion.
    But you didn't state why. I not only state that they are relevant, I present arguments as to why - as it goes to the heart of "ownership" as distinguished from the expanded normative concept of "rights of ownership".

    You still haven't provided a source for your definitions, and even if you had you would be equivocating.
    Go back and read the post again, Roy. The one that destroyed your arguments. Every definition had a link to its source. Just click on each word. And I am willing and able to provide more - MUCH MORE - upon request.

    Merely asserting that I am equivocating is absolutely meaningless without an actual argument, or explanation, Roy. You have to actually argue WHY you believe it is an equivocation, or else it is completely meaningless. Make your arguments, Roy. Don't expect anyone to read your mind. It is difficult enough to decipher your meaning, even when you actually make the attempt, but it is virtually impossible otherwise.

    Why can't you ever remember that theft does not transfer ownership, and that fact PROVES YOU WRONG?
    No, as I clearly wrote, using common [sourced] definitions, theft transfers "possession and control", and therefore ultimate ownership, should that theft never be resolved (i.e., society or the state cannot effect recovery via a forcible animal control and possession based on moral or legal claims to the contrary).

    Theft is a forcible animal transfer of possession and control from one entity to another which conflicts with a legal or moral right, or "claim", on possession and control. What a theft does not necessarily confer or transfer is a "right of ownership", legally or morally speaking (although sometimes it does, as will be shown below).

    A legal or moral "right of ownership" is different from mere possession and control. It is an abstract normative construct that relates to the ultimate "moral or legal claim" to possession and control, regardless of immediate possession and control by anyone else. That is why I can own a backhoe, but allow you to borrow or rent it from me for a fee, and still retain legal ownership of it. Although you possess and control it for a time, my title, or "legal claim to possession and control", along with our contract, is what assures me that your mere possession and control does not confer "legal ownership", since I have the ultimate legal right to forcibly possess and control it (e.g., you keep it longer than we agreed, or fail to make payment).

    Wrong. By your "logic" they HAVE no moral right, as ownership is defined solely by possession and control.
    Here is where your lack of logic kicks in, as you fail to distinguish and understand entirely different concepts related to the same thing. There are three concepts here:

    • A fact of ownership - absent any legal right to the contrary, it is defined as mere possession and control
    • A legal right of ownership - state recognition of an ultimate right of (claim on) possession and control (regardless of actual possession and control)
    • A moral right of ownership - an internal (sometimes societal) sense of entitlement or claim to an ultimate right of possession and control. A moral right of ownership can be based on mere possession and control and/or a legal right of possession and control.


    Each of these are separate concepts. None are necessarily inclusive or mutually exclusive of the others. Any combination can exist together. I can have ownership, or possession and control, without a legal or a moral right. I can have a legal right of possession and control, but no moral right, and no ability to have possession or control. I can have a moral right of possession and control without possession and control or a legal right to such.

    A moral right of ownership is a normative claim -- an internal claim of entitlement to ultimate possession and control, without regard to whether there is a legal claim, or whether possession and control actually exists, or can even be realized.

    EXAMPLE: The Silver Rush at MF Global
    The trustee overseeing the liquidation of the failed brokerage has proposed dumping all remaining customer assets—gold, silver, cash, options, futures and commodities—into a single pool that would pay customers only 72% of the value of their holdings. In other words, while traders already may have paid the full price for delivery of specific bars of gold or silver—and hold "warehouse receipts" to prove it—they'll have to forfeit 28% of the value.

    That has investors fuming. "Warehouse receipts, like gold bars, are our property, 100%," contends John Roe, a partner in BTR Trading, a Chicago futures-trading firm. He personally lost several hundred thousand dollars in investments via MF Global; his clients lost even more. "We are a unique class, and instead, the trustee is doing a radical redistribution of property," he says.

    Roe and others point out that, unlike other MF Global customers, who held paper assets, those with warehouse receipts have claims on assets that still exist and can be readily identified.
    In the above example, even though the trustees may indeed have the power to effectively override a legal title of ownership (a proven prior existing legal right of possession and control), exercising this power will do nothing to override the completely separate moral right of ownership upon which that legal title can be proved and was based - nor will that moral right of ownership have anything to do with whether actual possession and control is ultimately achieved by those who actually do have both a legal and a moral right.

    The trustees who do take possession and control of allocated assets may indeed exercise the power, regardless of legal authority, to effect a transfer of ownership (forcible animal possession and control) by virtue of THEFT - without a moral OR a legal right.

    States indisputably ALREADY HAVE legal control of land without owning it.
    OR THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES - in the case of the US Constitution.

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    Disputably. There are enumerated federal powers, and prohibition limits on state powers, or so-called "legal control", which extend even to land. And even in the absence of a state, and state recognition, people exercised power and control - ownership, whether later recognized by the state or not - or even "society" - over lands.

    This makes his preferred (and only) definition based on societal recognition, as the sole basis of ownership. Thus, it is not possible, in Roy's mind, for anyone on Earth to have had "ownership" of ANYTHING - EVER - without the prior existence of a state.
    Bait and switch, Steven, very dishonest. Society existed before states, and the state is not society. You just dishonestly substituted "state" for "societal."
    You are the one who stated that "...societal recognition is key to ownership" and that "State enforcement is the formal codification of societal recognition." Substitute state for society and it makes no difference, as I am the one who proved, by common (sourced) definition, that ownership does not require EITHER. The essence of ownership in its most fundamental form REQUIRES NO RECOGNITION OR ENFORCEMENT - only possession and control - the "rights of" which only pertain thereto as "claims" on the same.

    A lone man walking in a desert finds an oasis with a wellspring and fills his canteen with water. That man possesses, controls, and therefore "owns" that water. That is fundamental ownership, having NOTHING whatsoever to do with society, states, rights, claims, recognition, morals, privileges, or anything else. That state, or fact of ownership, exists without regard to a single other human being, and would exist even if he was the only human being on the face of the Earth. And he could just as easily "disown", or "dispossess" himself of that same water by pouring it out into the sand.

    Likewise, that same man could steal a canteen full of water from a fellow desert traveler while he slept, and would thereby become the new owner. Not the "rightful owner", as right has nothing to do with it. Just the new owner. As quickly as the theft occurred and was successful, ownership - by theft alone - would transfer.

    States arise largely to defend ownership of products of labor.
    Now that really is some blithering gibberish (and note that I don't just assert such a thing, as that would also be gibberish - I also state why). States arise largely for any number of reasons - often to defend ownership of "the state", which is to say possession and control of everything desired by those who establish the state. See that, Roy? States can be brutal dictatorships or anything else, which arise largely to defend their own interests. Furthermore, states that arise to defend ownership of anything at all can MUTATE into entities which do nothing but defend the interests of the state (i.e., those who benefit most from the state) alone.

    Theft does not effect a transfer of ownership, and that fact indisputably proves you wrong.
    Tell that to MF Global and the trustees. Tell that to Congress, who transferred ownership (absolute mastery and unlimited control) of the public currency to the privately owned and controlled Federal Reserve. Tell that to Roosevelt, who allowed, facilitated, and later even committed theft on untold wealth from American citizens, while allowing the title, or right of ownership of what was once their gold to transfer to the Treasury, Fed banks, foreigners, and foreign interests, all of whom retained their right to own gold -- which he fully acknowledged. Tell it to the Irish, the Native Americans and the Nepalese. There is no equivocation there. These are all examples of what many consider THEFTS which indeed effected a transfer of ownership.

    Now go back to my sources and refute them. Or, ask for more sources and I will provide them.

    Definitions are the long way of saying a word. Everywhere you see "ownership" substitute "possession and control" (or whatever, using your own sourced definition). Thus a "right of ownership" is a tautology for "right of possession and control". You can expand this tautology with an expansion of the word "right":
    Legal Rights
    Rights are perfect and imperfect. When the things which we have a right to possess or the actions we have a right to do, are or may be fixed and determinate, the right is a perfect one; but when the thing or the actions are vague and indeterminate, the right is an imperfect one. If a man demand his property, which is withheld from him, the right that supports his demand is a perfect one; because the thing demanded is, or may be fixed and determinate.
    Thus, in the case of a title, a right of ownership, as a [very relevant] legal definition, is a "perfect right of possession and control". Not "possession and control" but the "perfect right of" possession and control (aka "claim to" possession and control).
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 12-27-2011 at 04:39 PM.

  11. #1419
    Primary definitions only:

    own·er·ship - noun
    1. the state or fact of being an owner
    2. legal right of possession; lawful title (to something); proprietorship

    own·er - noun
    • possessor

    own - transitive verb
    • to possess
    • to hold as personal property
    • to have


    SOURCE: Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    own·er·ship - noun
    1. the state or fact of being an owner.
    2. legal right of possession; proprietorship.

    own·er - noun
    • a person who owns
    • possessor
    • proprietor

    own - verb (used with object)
    • to have or hold as one's own
    • possess


    SOURCE: Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.

  12. #1420
    Because to me, society is the sum of human interaction, minus aggression. A group stealing someone's land is a mob of barbarians, not a society.
    If someone is using a piece of land and a mob comes along and forces that individual off of that land then I agree it’s barbaric. But that is exactly what many of the large landholders have done throughout the world for centuries. Where the landgrabbing has been the most disproportionate you see the greatest gaps in wealth. This is why that article I posted several pages back on Robinson Crusoe and Friday is important. It illustrates what has gone on.
    We can end poverty. Not through welfare, government housing, etc. But by ensuring land (which was never created by anyone nor can be rightfully declared property) is not possessed by a small minority of the population.


    I don't see seceding from your neighbors' chosen defense and justice vendor as removing yourself from the community, any more than choosing a different grocery or gasoline vendor. Buy a big tank for your back yard and order a truck delivery of 10,000 gallons of gas once a year, instead of buying it from the local station like a normal person. You're different, but you're still part of the community of whomever you associate and trade with.
    I have no problem with a voluntaryist society.

    Excellent!! And I'm all for as many neighborhoods adopting ground rent as wish to. I think that ultimately the insurance companies from the Rothbardian territories will drive all non-Rothbardian governments out of business by offering insurance against various oppressions and predations, such as asset seizures, arrests, and land value taxation. But I could be wrong.
    Well Roy and I have presented evidence of societies that have successfully used a geoist or geoist-like system. Do you have examples of Rothbardian systems?



    The key thing in shopping malls, condos, gated communities, etc., is that their rules and their funding is voluntary. So if that's all you meant by your form of georgism, that people be allowed to coagulate and form contractual communities, we're in total agreement and in fact this writer is confused because having contractual communities is totally Rothbardian (aka anarcho-capitalist). We're on board with it. See the book The Voluntary City. Now these contractual communities need not be geographically-based -- see, for example, the novel The Diamond Age. But, they could be. Some man or men buys up 20 square miles of land and makes it a jurisdiction of "Amish law" or "Greenwich Village law" or "geoist law". There's stipulations written into the deeds that everyone must pay land value "tax", or must never play loud rock music, or whatever the man thinks will make for a successful and pleasant community. Then, the land value "tax" is contractual, and thus voluntary, and thus really not a tax and I will love it to pieces! Voluntary=good, initiation-of-force=bad.
    Ever heard of Arden, Delaware? It is a Georgist community where land is not “owned” and it cannot be sold. Instead it is leased. Whatever land you occupy you are free to improve it however you wish. Residents pay only a land value tax for that community. It’s been around since 1900 and, as far as I know, is still successful.

    What about if you want to fence off a nature preserve, keeping it in its pristine natural condition?
    Some geoist communities may vary on this but a landholder would still pay LVT whether it’s a nature preserve, golf course, airport, or whatever. I would imagine many geoists would promote tax credits for nature preserves.

    According to this, anyone would be free to tramp in and labor it away from you at any time. I think this would be unjust, and I think Murray might agree.
    Well Rothbard believes there are two invalid types of land titles: “feudalism” (his quotes not mine) and land-engrossing. In order to be a legitimate holder of land you must be a “transformer” or heir to the transformer. But I see flaws in his transformer argument. For example, if I settle on a piece of land and build a garden I can legitimately claim the garden as my own since I am the source of its creation. But what about the land? Does the garden entitle me to an acre of land? 2? 3? Maybe ten square miles of land? It is completely arbitrary. So while I applaud Rothbard for recognizing a land monopoly problem, especially in the poorest nations, he does not give a satisfactory explanation on how land becomes property from a philosophical view.

    In the particular example he gave, he is right: if the land is claimed but then ignored, never used, never transformed, and forgotten, it's fair game again at some point. But I don't agree with some of the implications of using use and transformation as the sole homesteading criteria. Philosophically, the essential element which brings about ownership is the act of making the claim, and then there is a continuum of certainty in the justice of the claim determined by any factor you can think of: the size of the area claimed, the extent of the transformation the claimant has done, etc. As a practical matter, using and transforming the land are probably the two biggest things you can do to solidify your claim to the land. Without that, your claim is much, much, more precarious, although it is possible, as in the case of the nature preserve. Once you've plowed your farm or built your cabin, your claim is probably set in stone, nobody's going to contest the justice of your ownership (well, except the Georgists/geoists ).
    And as I mentioned above, how much transformation must take place? How much land can be claimed if I morally can claim it? Could I climb to the top of a mountain peak and declare everything I see as mine? Could I dig a hole or plant a tree and claim hundreds of surrounding miles as “mine”? (Of course, we’re talking as if this land is not already “claimed”). Its all completely arbitrary.

    Libertarianism is not about being arbitrary. Everything is concrete. Rights. (True) property. Etc. Georgism is clear. Land is not property. It is the source of property.That is why I believe geolibertarianism makes so much sense.

    Anyway, there's no apodictically perfect and true way to determine the exact requirements to homestead land. Do exactly one hour of labor per 10 sq. yards of land, or make transformations increasing the land's value by at least 10%, or... you see? Conventions will arise. The market, including the arbitrators, will decide what constitutes a just claim and what doesn't.
    But of course you have no problem with government stepping in for you to enforce your privilege. ;-)

    "Yes, you filed your claim to this 20 sq. miles and marked the corners with stakes, but that was a year ago and you haven't done anything since; I think it's a bogus claim and call foul", says Smith. The arbitrator is probably going to side with Smith. "But it's a nature preserve!!" Well, how big a nature preserve can you fence off? As I say, it's not an exact science, but I'm confident a free-market justice system will come up with something reasonable and workable and somewhat fair-seeming.
    And if that “free market justice system” decides that the landlord holds too much land then who is morally right; the landlord or the judge?


    What I mean is, isn't your system really not abolishing land ownership at all, but merely giving us thousands of landowners in the form of political entities? Wouldn't these political entities act as the ultimate owners of their territories, or "plots"?
    Whoever works the land and pays the tax is the “owner” or possessor as I prefer to call it. Government has no claim to it. It acts only to give back to the other citizens what they create (the land value).


    Most voluntary of them all... assuming that land should not be owned. I do not share that assumption, thus in my view voluntariness is increased by respecting property rights in land.
    It wasn’t very voluntary in South America where anyone who didn’t own a ranch was essentially forced to work for the landlord. In US history class you learn the conditions of the ex-slaves did not necessarily improve. According to the Constitution they were free, but they had no other choice but to work for their former masters under similar work conditions.

    You didn't. I was just saying that for all practical purposes, your political entities are landowners.Yes, they are supposedly acting for The Public Good and The Welfare of All, with naught but wisdom and selfless love in their hearts, but that is of course a laughable bunk.
    It is laughable bunk which is why a true geolibertarian society would not give government the power to take land. It just denies them the power to enforce privilege. That seems pretty dang libertarian to me.

    They cannot be said to "represent" the people in any real way unless the people give their unanimous consent. So the managers of the political entity are the ones in control of the territory they control. Your system has landowners, my system has landowners. My landowners get their land by homesteading it; your landowners get it by... what? Elections, wars, and other bogus political means. So, seizing it, as far as I can tell.
    Very misleading statements here. Lots of private land was taken through force, and it remains private through force. In South America natives were forced off their land so ranchers could use it. In the US homesteading was successful because the government and private entities forced Native Americans off of the land. This is what you have defended. There is no force in my proposal.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  13. #1421
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    And no one has presented any convincing evidence of this. Roy L. has asserted it about a billion times. But I still have utterly no reason to believe that millions upon millions of people die each year due to landownership. This repeated claim by Roy thus continues to appear ludicrous to everyone but himself, you, and Matt Butler, and perhaps Henry George Himself, looking down from the spirit world. If you are privy to proof of your claims of which the rest of us remain ignorant, perhaps you should de-ignorize us.
    Murray Rothbard himself addressed the impact of land monopoly in The Ethics of Liberty.

    Land monopoly is far more widespread in the modern world than most people—especially most Americans—believe. In the undeveloped world, especially in Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, feudal landholding is a crucial social and economic problem—with or without quasi-serf impositions on the persons of the peasantry.
    The root cause of poverty is private ownership of the natural resource essential to life – land. Private property in land has been long established. In giving all men equal rights of access to land it is not necessary to confiscate land, undo titles or nationalise land. It is simply a matter of collecting the land value rental thereby returning to the community the value created by the community. This can be achieved through Land Value Taxation.
    ~Michael Hawes, a School of Economic Science economist
    http://www.c4ej.com/resources/the-causes-of-poverty
    http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/eleven.asp
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  14. #1422
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    Very misleading statements here. Lots of private land was taken through force, and it remains private through force. In South America natives were forced off their land so ranchers could use it. In the US homesteading was successful because the government and private entities forced Native Americans off of the land. This is what you have defended. There is no force in my proposal.
    But am I not correct in my proposal that governments, in your improved micro-secessionist world, would essentially be land-owners? You proposed that under anarcho-capitalism, each land owner is essentially a sovereign nation, and I agreed with you that that's true in a lot of ways -- actually everyone is a sovereign, whatever the nature of his possessions and whether they include land or not. Now I propose that likewise, under a system of micro-nations, the political rulers (if any) of each micro-nation are for all practical purposes the ultimate landowners of the territory which the micro-nation covers.

    Since you didn't directly reply to this point, I assume you agree that it is basically correct. Governments = landowners. Your system does not really abolish landownership, it makes the political rulers the new landowners.

  15. #1423
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Governments = landowners. Your system does not really abolish landownership, it makes the political rulers the new landowners.
    No, don't be silly. Different words would be used. That would make everything indisputably and self-evidently different. Duh.



    That's surface tension at work. A bowl of water and pepper flakes floating on top represents real non-land-based productivity and wealth concentrations. The drop of soap represents an LVT tax regime trying to plop into the collectivized land pool, as it attempts to cash in on all the Great Gobs of Lumpy Land Revenue Fun.

  16. #1424
    Well I read the first 13 pages of the thread but it's just way too long to read so I'll probably just be repeating what a thousand people have said already.

    I think Georgists have correctly identified the problem. Land is unique in that it is really difficult to say that it can be 'owned'. It isn't much more than a set of coordinates, and to say someone can own a territory while absent is authoritarian and no different to the state. The only other thing I can think of that is similar would be radio spectrum - essentially a gap to be filled.

    Their solution to the problem is rather odd however. Why on earth is a tax necessary? It'd probably have some negative consequences too - imagine a poor squatter who is currently growing some food in a piece of land she is using. She only has enough food to use for herself, and is not making an income. How can she stay anywhere if she can't afford to be anywhere?

    Declaring that all land is collectively owned and thus those that use it owe something to everyone else is rather ludicrous. In order for that to be true, everyone would need to be using every square inch of the world at once. Rather than saying that everyone owns all land, it makes much more sense to say that no-one owns any land. Then the solution is simple - the current user is the current owner, and when that person leaves, they abandon their right to use the land.

    Of course, an absolute interpretation of the use equals ownership model would result in unsavoury situations, where mobs of people stand outside the most valued areas, waiting for the current occupier to leave the residence. So rather the model that I'd prefer would be tradable rights to first use. Say someone packs up his large farm to go on holiday for a year. He can't have the right to bar people from his previous residency, they must have the right to pitch tents and so on. But neither would it be fair for him to lose his entire livelihood just because he decided to go on holiday. So he should have the right to use the land first. All this would be subject to abandonment of course; if he instead interloped off somewhere for a decade, it would be hardly fair for him to close down shop of everybody who has settled in.

    That's my thoughts anyway.
    Last edited by Inny Binny; 12-27-2011 at 08:28 PM.



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #1425
    Quote Originally Posted by Inny Binny View Post
    I think Georgists have correctly identified the problem. Land is unique in that it is really difficult to say that it can be 'owned'. It isn't much more than a set of coordinates, and to say someone can own a territory while absent is authoritarian and no different to the state. The only other thing I can think of that is similar would be radio spectrum - essentially a gap to be filled.
    Why would it be authoritarian? Some people have long-term plans and complex plans, and are not necessarily present at nor using all their property every day, but there is no authoritarianism in them retaining ownership, keeping it away from other people, as part of their master plan, perhaps not to take place until 30 years in the future, or even 1,000 years in the future. That doesn't seem authoritarian to me.

    Also, "land" is not unique -- everything consists of raw material, occupies a set of coordinates, and otherwise relies on characteristics and resources of existence.

    Declaring that all land is collectively owned and thus those that use it owe something to everyone else is rather ludicrous.
    That is indeed one of the core points of contention which has been repeated over and over, but you put it nicely. Of course, the LVTers don't see it as ludicrous. And there's nothing that will change that -- people don't really ever change their minds.

    In order for that to be true, everyone would need to be using every square inch of the world at once. Rather than saying that everyone owns all land, it makes much more sense to say that no-one owns any land. Then the solution is simple - the current user is the current owner, and when that person leaves, they abandon their right to use the land.

    Of course, an absolute interpretation of the use equals ownership model would result in unsavoury situations, where mobs of people stand outside the most valued areas, waiting for the current occupier to leave the residence. So rather the model that I'd prefer would be tradable rights to first use. Say someone packs up his large farm to go on holiday for a year. He can't have the right to bar people from his previous residency, they must have the right to pitch tents and so on. But neither would it be fair for him to lose his entire livelihood just because he decided to go on holiday. So he should have the right to use the land first. All this would be subject to abandonment of course; if he instead interloped off somewhere for a decade, it would be hardly fair for him to close down shop of everybody who has settled in.
    That's one possible solution, I guess, albeit to a problem that I don't see as existent.

  19. #1426

    Smile

    I think Georgists have correctly identified the problem. Land is unique in that it is really difficult to say that it can be 'owned'. It isn't much more than a set of coordinates, and to say someone can own a territory while absent is authoritarian and no different to the state. The only other thing I can think of that is similar would be radio spectrum - essentially a gap to be filled.

    Their solution to the problem is rather odd however. Why on earth is a tax necessary? It'd probably have some negative consequences too - imagine a poor squatter who is currently growing some food in a piece of land she is using. She only has enough food to use for herself, and is not making an income. How can she stay anywhere if she can't afford to be anywhere?
    Under a proper LVT scheme there will be a great deal of land available that is essentially free. People won't desire to own it, or they'll not desire it enough to make the land worth all that much. In any case there should be plenty enough land available for people to homestead. LVT will be a god send for small farmers, especially those who want to not only profit from farming but also use farming to enhance and improve their local ecology. Country people and rural people have the most to gain from this. Where do you see the worst material poverty? Rural populations in poor states where there are a few great private landowning interests in control. Visit the Alabama Black Belt.

    LVT is a socially minded scheme and will remove a great many inequities. Small farmers and rural people and especially the rural poor will benefit enormously. Virtually everyone benefits from LVT.

  20. #1427
    Quote Originally Posted by Inny Binny View Post
    Well I read the first 13 pages of the thread but it's just way too long to read so I'll probably just be repeating what a thousand people have said already.
    The thread is worth reading as a typical development of its type. The invariable fallaciousness, absurdity and dishonesty of all objections to LVT is very thoroughly demonstrated.
    I think Georgists have correctly identified the problem. Land is unique in that it is really difficult to say that it can be 'owned'.
    Right: it is impossible to justify the uncompensated forcible removal of people's liberty to use it.
    It isn't much more than a set of coordinates,
    Land is everything that nature provides, other than people and the products of their labor. Location is the more abstract item you are talking about.
    and to say someone can own a territory while absent is authoritarian and no different to the state.
    Actually, the state usually provides benefits to go along with its administration of the land. The private landowner qua landowner, by contrast, is a pure parasite.
    The only other thing I can think of that is similar would be radio spectrum - essentially a gap to be filled.
    Broadcast spectrum is land in the economic sense.
    Their solution to the problem is rather odd however. Why on earth is a tax necessary?
    That is explained in the thread. There are several conclusive and indisputable reasons why a tax is necessary if land is to be privately owned (if it is publicly owned, market leasing works similarly):

    1. It is the only way to recover the publicly created value of privately owned land for public purposes and benefit.

    2. It is the only way to fund the mechanism for securing the equal liberty rights of all to use land without forcing the productive to relinquish the fruits of their labor.

    3. It is the only way to make exclusive tenure not constitute a welfare subsidy giveaway to the landholder at the expense of the productive.

    4. It is the most effective way to ensure efficient market allocation of the resource.

    5. It is the only way to require just compensation from the landowner for depriving others of their liberty and to fund just compensation for those who are forcibly deprived of their liberty.

    And there are other, less obvious reasons.
    It'd probably have some negative consequences too - imagine a poor squatter who is currently growing some food in a piece of land she is using. She only has enough food to use for herself, and is not making an income. How can she stay anywhere if she can't afford to be anywhere?
    All serious LVT proposals I am aware of include a flat, universal land tax exemption (or, second best, a citizens' dividend) for all resident citizens to restore the equal individual right to liberty. ALL resident citizens would be ensured FREE, SECURE tenure on enough good land of their choice to live on. This is explained in the thread.
    Declaring that all land is collectively owned and thus those that use it owe something to everyone else is rather ludicrous.
    It's not collectively owned. It is unowned, and unownable, so those who deprive others of their liberty to use it must make just compensation for forcibly violating their rights. Consider the water in a river. No one owns it, but if someone takes out so much that others' ability to use it is impaired, they owe just compensation.
    In order for that to be true, everyone would need to be using every square inch of the world at once.
    This misapprehension is cleared up in the thread. The relevant right is the natural liberty right to use ANY land one wishes, not ALL land at once.
    Rather than saying that everyone owns all land, it makes much more sense to say that no-one owns any land.
    Right.
    Then the solution is simple - the current user is the current owner,
    You are contradicting yourself. No one can ever rightly own land.
    and when that person leaves, they abandon their right to use the land.
    Then they aren't an owner but a usufruct tenant. One problem with this "solution" is that it sacrifices the rights of the younger and the landless to the convenience and profit of their landed elders. Those who ALREADY HAVE the good land are privileged to violate the rights of those who don't. Another very serious problem with it is that many uses of land -- like an apartment building -- involve multiple simultaneous users, and it is not clear how to handle the holding of large amounts of land by developers or development companies that don't "leave," or how to recognize tenants' rights to use the land. LVT solves those problems.
    Of course, an absolute interpretation of the use equals ownership model would result in unsavoury situations, where mobs of people stand outside the most valued areas, waiting for the current occupier to leave the residence. So rather the model that I'd prefer would be tradable rights to first use.
    That's a privilege, not a right; like a taxi medallion.
    Say someone packs up his large farm to go on holiday for a year. He can't have the right to bar people from his previous residency, they must have the right to pitch tents and so on. But neither would it be fair for him to lose his entire livelihood just because he decided to go on holiday. So he should have the right to use the land first. All this would be subject to abandonment of course; if he instead interloped off somewhere for a decade, it would be hardly fair for him to close down shop of everybody who has settled in.
    IMO if you consider the matter more carefully, you will see that LVT is a far superior solution.

  21. #1428
    Quote Originally Posted by MattButler View Post
    Under a proper LVT scheme there will be a great deal of land available that is essentially free. People won't desire to own it, or they'll not desire it enough to make the land worth all that much. In any case there should be plenty enough land available for people to homestead. LVT will be a god send for small farmers, especially those who want to not only profit from farming but also use farming to enhance and improve their local ecology. Country people and rural people have the most to gain from this. Where do you see the worst material poverty? Rural populations in poor states where there are a few great private landowning interests in control. Visit the Alabama Black Belt.

    LVT is a socially minded scheme and will remove a great many inequities. Small farmers and rural people and especially the rural poor will benefit enormously. Virtually everyone benefits from LVT.
    As always, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  22. #1429
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Why would it be authoritarian?
    True, it's more feudal and despotic than authoritarian.
    Some people have long-term plans and complex plans, and are not necessarily present at nor using all their property every day,
    Question begging fallacy. We have already established that land can never rightly be their property.
    but there is no authoritarianism in them retaining ownership, keeping it away from other people, as part of their master plan, perhaps not to take place until 30 years in the future, or even 1,000 years in the future. That doesn't seem authoritarian to me.
    True, a more accurate word would be, "evil."
    Also, "land" is not unique
    Helmuth will now tell a typical lie that apologists for landowner privilege frequently tell:
    -- everything consists of raw material,
    That is self-evidently a flat-out lie. Products of labor indisputably DO NOT consist of raw material, by definition.
    occupies a set of coordinates,
    But not everything persistently deprives people of their natural liberty right to access a particular set of coordinates. Helmuth is dishonestly trying to pretend that the physical space a car occupies -- which can move around -- deprives others of their liberty in just the same way that fencing off an acre of land they want to use does. However, that is just a transparent lie.
    and otherwise relies on characteristics and resources of existence.
    Meaningless gibberish designed to divert attention from the relevant facts.
    That is indeed one of the core points of contention which has been repeated over and over, but you put it nicely.
    No, it's a mistaken characterization of what LVT proponents propose.
    Of course, the LVTers don't see it as ludicrous.
    More accurately, we don't say it.
    And there's nothing that will change that -- people don't really ever change their minds.
    More accurately, apologists for landowner privilege don't change their minds unless they somehow find a willingness to know facts that prove their beliefs are false and evil. I was unable to see the cat until I realized I was lying to prevent myself from seeing it. Other LVT proponents have told me of similar revelations, including some who have thanked me for my persistence in identifying the fact that they were lying.

  23. #1430
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    As always, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
    Probably does not mean insignificantly. Besides land tax is not all good. It is after all, a tax, but at least its a tax that works in the most benign kind of way. One purpose is to enhance mankind's environment. That is as benign a goal as any you will find. You must confront the issues openly and soundly. If myself and others are willing to devote so much time maybe there is a great deal of value in the thing.

  24. #1431
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    As always, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
    Yes, like eradicating smallpox, or abolishing slavery, or providing whole cities with clean, safe drinking water, or curing pneumonia, or communicating instantly with people anywhere in the world, or being able to access any music you like at any time for free, or storing a library worth of text on a device smaller than your finger that you can buy for 20 minutes' labor....

    Yes, LVT offers benefits that sound too good to be true. But they ARE true. LVT has ALWAYS WORKED. ALWAYS. It MUST do so as a matter of economic law.

  25. #1432
    Quote Originally Posted by MattButler View Post
    Probably does not mean insignificantly. Besides land tax is not all good. It is after all, a tax, but at least its a tax that works in the most benign kind of way. One purpose is to enhance mankind's environment. That is as benign a goal as any you will find. You must confront the issues openly and soundly. If myself and others are willing to devote so much time maybe there is a great deal of value in the thing.
    Yes, but the problem with LVT (and almost any other tax) is that it is unaportioned, and will invariably be used for nefarious deeds-and will more than likely increase as the State expands. People wasting time with LVT would be better off just using reason to persuade people to donate to the treasury. If it is in fact in the rational self interest of the taxed, they will gladly do it. I say put it to the test. Give people the choice of LVT. Me, I prefer microsecession so I don't have to pay any silly taxes except tariffs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #1433
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Yes, like eradicating smallpox, or abolishing slavery, or providing whole cities with clean, safe drinking water, or curing pneumonia, or communicating instantly with people anywhere in the world, or being able to access any music you like at any time for free, or storing a library worth of text on a device smaller than your finger that you can buy for 20 minutes' labor....

    Yes, LVT offers benefits that sound too good to be true. But they ARE true. LVT has ALWAYS WORKED. ALWAYS. It MUST do so as a matter of economic law.
    Yes, it works to move wealth from group A to group B. Noone is questioning that it "works" in that regard. As I stated earlier, even Rothbard conceded that it is the "least evil" tax. That, however, doesn't mean it is good or necessary.
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 12-28-2011 at 12:45 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  28. #1434
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Yes, but the problem with LVT (and almost any other tax) is that it is unaportioned,
    Unlike other taxes, LVT is apportioned exactly to the benefits of which the landholder deprives society.
    and will invariably be used for nefarious deeds-
    Then unlike other taxes, government will automatically get less revenue from it next year. LVT is the ONLY POSSIBLE tax that aligns government's financial incentives with the public interest.
    and will more than likely increase as the State expands.
    Right: as government spending on services and infrastructure creates land value, an expanding state naturally generates more revenue from land value. As the whole benefit of expanding state activities goes to landowners, the alternative to expanding LVT revenue as the state expands is to give a welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners.
    People wasting time with LVT would be better off just using reason to persuade people to donate to the treasury.
    No, because there is no way to use reason to persuade people to do something so irrational. The notion of funding government by donations is self-evidently cretinous. It has never been done, and never can be, and everyone over the age of 12 understands that fact.
    If it is in fact in the rational self interest of the taxed, they will gladly do it.
    No, they will not, any more than landowners will donate enough funds to build roads. Your claims are just absurd.
    I say put it to the test. Give people the choice of LVT.
    But first tell them an arbitrarily large number of lies about it....
    Me, I prefer microsecession so I don't have to pay any silly taxes except tariffs.
    Tariffs, unlike LVT, are certainly silly.

  29. #1435
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Yes, it works to move wealth from group A to group B.
    Right: it moves wealth from privileged, greedy parasites who have not earned it to honest, productive people who have.
    Noone is questioning that it "works" in that regard. As I stated earlier, even Rothbard conceded that it is the "least evil" tax. That, however, doesn't mean it is good or necessary.
    It is indisputably good. And it is absolutely necessary to liberty and justice.

  30. #1436
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    It's not collectively owned. It is unowned, and unownable, so those who deprive others of their liberty to use it must make just compensation for forcibly violating their rights.
    See, helmuth? Told you different words would be used, and that would make it indisputably and self-evidently different.



    0:45 OK, Not-land-owner State, want to go out and charge some Not-rents? The other-than-ownership-power to charge other-than-rent for occupancy of other-than-ownable-land will be appraised at a "fair market value" by an other-than-landlord-state.

    Of course, forget that the net effect would be exactly the same as if the land was said to be collectively owned, but that is only if you want to quibble with words and paradigms from some other planet. We won't call it that on our planet, because that's propertarian language that we want eradicated, as this is Dawning of the Non-propertarian Age of Aquarius.

    Under a Georgist LVT regime, exclusive tenure will no longer constitute a welfare subsidy giveaway to "the exclusive landholders" (the Georgist Bourgeois), at the expense of "the productive" (the Georgist Proletariat). Not sure how the distinction is made, since exclusive landholders who are paying the highest LVT are also presumed to be "the most productive". Hence, in many cases, Bourgeois=Proletariat, which means they will not be given a welfare subsidy at their own expense(?). Even so, this decidedly and presumptively non-Marxist way will constitute an Honest Injun, We Guarantee It, Indisputable And Self-Evident Intention of not forcing "the productive" to relinquish the fruits of their labor.

    But is that true?

    Leaseholds will be valued such that the "presumably most productive" entities (as evidenced by rent payments alone) will be forced to return only the "publicly created value" that was magically infused into the land, as provided for by society and government. This is why it cannot be considered a relinquishing of "the fruits of their labor". This in turn will fund "the mechanism" for securing the equal liberty rights of all to use land (not sure what "the mechanism" is, or exactly how it secures equal liberty rights to use all land, but that's what Roy wrote).

    The only other thing I'm not quite sure about:

    Clearly, an ad valorem land value tax places land-value-dependent commerce at a disadvantage from all other commerce, as leaseholders bear all the costs of government (at least under the idealized Georgist "single tax" system). However, is it even accurate to say that land-value-dependent commerce is "bearing" those costs, given that the "productive" leaseholders, who are paying all the highest costs for their exclusive land use, would simply continue, as they always have, to pass those costs on to the end-of-line consumers, who ultimately pay all bills, including all the taxes?

    It would seem that an LVT is really tantamount to a complex internal tariff on all goods and services that are highly land-use and land-value dependent (read=most of the basic needs that all humans require for basic survival, which comes from the land itself). If that really is the case, how does land, via land-dependent commerce, not remain a mere channel through which basic needs are taxed, and consumer productivity (individual wealth) is really and ultimately siphoned?

    Lastly, the "Henry George Theorem" states that under certain ideal conditions, aggregate spending by government will be equal to aggregate rent based on land value (land rent).

    You can see where the intent lies for LVT proponents. Here are two enormous, but roughly equal, amounts of wealth siphoned from the public. Simply divert that nice, juicy revenue stream away from the landowners, and channel it to government, and you can eliminate other taxes altogether at the expense of both destructive taxes and equally destructive "landowner privilege". Sounds simple enough.

    My problems with this:

    First and foremost, the Georgist paradigm identifies renters as productive, and landowners as parasites, even when they are owner-occupiers. So it's plain enough to me why government cannot be referred to as a "collective landowner", as that could be like saying "collective parasite". No, the state, in combination with "society", provides a "publicly created value", and "access to all that nature provides", once it is recognized as the right of everyone, means that a collection of land value rents is not parasitic, but merely a mechanism for recovering what was "deprived" of others "by force". And the state is not collecting for itself, but rather, ostensibly, on behalf of those who were "otherwise at liberty" but dispossessed.

    With an absolute state-controlled monopoly on leaseholds, however, and no competing interests with which to compare real "market value", what would stop LVT rents from multiplying to many times what they otherwise might have been under a strictly landowner market - such that the aggregate LVT/government spending exceeds the prior aggregate of both rents and government expenditures combined? And how, PRECISELY, would you know this with any certainty? Do you trust that government is capable of fair and proper valuation of anything at all? I don't. Never will, in fact. Roy has what he believes is a formula (which I'll call the Georgist Roy Standard). But why would the state be trusted to follow that when it can't even be trusted with following and protecting something as truly simple as a gold standard (i.e., one UNIT of currency = one WEIGHT/PURITY of metal)?

    Even if I accepted the Georgist liberty rights of-everything-to-everyone premise, which I do not, the extent that government overvalues and otherwise manipulates land to artificially increase its value (through special zoning, artificial scarcity, etc.,) would be the extent to which I viewed (as I do now our current government) as little more than a presumptuous, self-serving, winner choosing and wealth-redistributing parasite.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 12-28-2011 at 06:30 AM.

  31. #1437
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Why would it be authoritarian? Some people have long-term plans and complex plans, and are not necessarily present at nor using all their property every day, but there is no authoritarianism in them retaining ownership, keeping it away from other people, as part of their master plan, perhaps not to take place until 30 years in the future, or even 1,000 years in the future. That doesn't seem authoritarian to me.

    Also, "land" is not unique -- everything consists of raw material, occupies a set of coordinates, and otherwise relies on characteristics and resources of existence.
    Well land, or more appropriately territory, is unique in the sense that it is the set of coordinates, not merely an object that occupies them. Of course we could be silly and talk about the dirt in the ground, but we live above ground and not within it, so we're really talking about a volume that people might occupy. It's hard to see how forcing people outside of this is not authoritarian.

    Of course the most leftist of social anarchists might say that all absentee ownership is inherently authoritarian. Which is probably correct in the sense that you're using force to prevent someone from using something. But some authoritarianism in property ownership probably necessary for a functioning society; it's just that the ownership of territories is the most strikingly dictatorial of all and is unacceptable to me. Any large-scale absentee ownership of land is essentially a miniature feudalism or monarchy.

    @Roy L - It's pretty hard to respond to a set of meaningless decontextualised snippets.
    Last edited by Inny Binny; 12-28-2011 at 05:39 AM.

  32. #1438
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    Ever heard of Arden, Delaware? It is a Georgist community where land is not “owned” and it cannot be sold. Instead it is leased. Whatever land you occupy you are free to improve it however you wish. Residents pay only a land value tax for that community. It’s been around since 1900 and, as far as I know, is still successful.
    I don't know if I would call Arden, Delaware a success story or a model, especially given its limited size, but it can be used to give some idea about how extremely pro-LVT people think, believe and behave. Arden is 160 acres of moderately expensive leasehold land, the "full rental value" assessments of which are driven and determined, no surprise to me, largely by budget needs (which includes county taxes which are levied and paid for out of leasehold payments).

    LINK - Excerpt

    The Board of Assessors establishes the land rent rates for Arden leaseholds, according to the Georgist principle of “full rental value” of the land. Since Henry George himself never spelled out how to calculate “full rental value,” this is no simple task.
    No simple task indeed. Arden's methods are not based on Roy's version of people "bidding" on lands which establish floor values in an otherwise free market. In fact, there are no 'bids' that control a single thing in Arden. "The Board of Assessors" report is used to determine how much money must be raised to fund the Village and the Trust, as well as pay County and School taxes. This in turn dictates "Base Land Values", which vary only by edict, using arbitrary "value capture" formulas, as also determined by the Board of Assessors.

    LINK (pdf)
    Excerpted from Arden Board of Assessors Report (emphasis added)

    Sum of town expenses (both "non-budget" in the form of county and school taxes, and "budget" as embodied in the town's budget), and the cost of administering the trust, while maintaining a "prudent reserve". This method divides full rental value by acreage of land held privately in leaseholds, such divisions determined by assessors' formulas. The formulas, which are intended to reflect the relative value of leaseholds, are based on lot size, zoning privileges and location factors (see rates and factors below).
    As I predicted, zoning privileges, which are artificially established by planners, is but one method used for value determination based on artificial scarcity which drives up value. Location factors are things like "Forest Factor", adjacency to specific areas, like preferred and non-preferred roads, proximity or adjacency to "communal green". Factors that would normally determine free market value based on individual preferences and value judgments (e.g., childless or older couple doesn't care about proximity to schools) are all made as "value" assessments, which are made up entirely by an oligarchical elite.

    There is no exactness to the value capture multipliers of leaseholds, which vary by in 5% increments, and a base that equally arbitrarily adds increased value assessment to the A Rate base, like 80% for a B Rate, and 40% for a C Rate. All of these percentages are distributed shares of tax burden, the total of which is determined by the sum of the overall budget and "prudent reserve". The percentages themselves only give the impression of just 'feeling their way through', as they experiment with numbers, rather than arrive at any real-world valuations - like Roosevelt waking up each morning after his confiscation of gold to decide arbitrarily what the value of gold was going to be that day.

    Arden is a very small village, with people who presumably interact with one another on a daily basis, which I would think would automatically place a natural check and balance on arbitrary abuses of power, given that everybody pretty much knows everybody by name there. That presents very limited (but certainly not impossible) ability for arbitrary political abuses on an otherwise faceless constituency. Despite this, Arden already practices what looks like totally arbitrary price-fixing absurdity to me -- something I would never want to be subjected to even that small a scale, and definitely not on the scale of an average city or county.

    EDIT: For anyone who thinks that elected representatives are a check and balance on power in Arden, think again.

    Trustees
    The trustees collect the land rent, pay county and school
    taxes, oversee administrative costs of the trust, and see
    that the money remaining is spent in accordance with the
    approved budget. They also invest funds and approve
    the transfer of leases when houses are sold. Occasionally
    they decide on requests to divide lots or adjust boundaries
    (subject to zoning restrictions); give authorization to cut
    trees on leaseholds; deal with encroachment issues, housing
    code violations, and other matters related to the leaseholds
    as designated by the Deed of Trust. Often the trustees
    communicate with outside agencies affecting the welfare
    of the village. When a vacancy occurs, the remaining two
    trustees solicit input from the residents and nominate a new
    trustee. The nominee is then approved or disapproved in a
    referendum of all eligible voters. Election is for life.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 12-28-2011 at 08:43 AM.

  33. #1439
    Quote Originally Posted by Inny Binny View Post
    Of course the most leftist of social anarchists might say that all absentee ownership is inherently authoritarian.
    Actually, all ownership, absentee or not. "Property is Theft"; that's the old anarchist mantra.

    I really don't see the problem with absentee ownership, in land nor anything else, but you do, so hey, what can one do? Continue to disagree I suppose.

    Which is probably correct in the sense that you're using force to prevent someone from using something.
    But is that force defensive or aggressive? In libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism) that is always the big question. Is the "something" their just property? If so, then force can be used to defend it. The force which the "someone" is using to try to start using the "something" would in that case be the unjust force.

    Two kids are fighting over a stick. Who had it first determines who is in the right.

    Force isn't always a bad thing. In a libertarian society there'd be tons of force: all around, overwhelming, and ever-present. It would just be defensive force.

    @Roy L - It's pretty hard to respond to a set of meaningless decontextualised snippets.
    Ha ha ha ha ha he he he!!!

  34. #1440
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    But am I not correct in my proposal that governments, in your improved micro-secessionist world, would essentially be land-owners?
    How so?

    You proposed that under anarcho-capitalism, each land owner is essentially a sovereign nation, and I agreed with you that that's true in a lot of ways -- actually everyone is a sovereign, whatever the nature of his possessions and whether they include land or not.
    So what difference would it make if I was a Mexican peasant in the 19th century forced to work for a wealthy landlord? Whether its government or a landlord, in the end there is no difference, I live and work under their rules.

    Now I propose that likewise, under a system of micro-nations, the political rulers (if any) of each micro-nation are for all practical purposes the ultimate landowners of the territory which the micro-nation covers.
    The "rulers" would be elected and have limited terms under a geolibertarian micro-nation. Same cannot be said about a landlord who rules a chunk of land til the day he dies and passes it on to an heir.

    Since you didn't directly reply to this point, I assume you agree that it is basically correct. Governments = landowners. Your system does not really abolish landownership, it makes the political rulers the new landowners.
    Under geolibertarianism, governments do not decide what the tax will be, the market does. The government does not dictate who, when or how its used.

    In The Condition of Labor Henry George stated, "We propose--leaving land in the private possession of individuals, with full liberty on their part to give, sell or bequeath it--simply to levy on it for public uses a tax that shall equal the annual value of the land itself, irrespective of the use made of it or the improvements on it."

    ^Can't be much of an "owner" if you cant do any of those things.

    You say landowning is a right. If that is the case then there is logically no right to life. In order to live we must have a right to access resources (food, water, shelter, etc). If we must ask permission for such things then there are no rights. There are only the "rights" of the landowners.
    Last edited by redbluepill; 12-28-2011 at 02:18 PM.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 48 of 68 FirstFirst ... 38464748495058 ... 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
  •