Page 51 of 68 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,530 of 2026

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

  1. #1501
    [WIKI][/WIKI]
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Did this thread die?

    Keep it going, it is close to overtaking the Fiji water thread.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #1502
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Despite his ham-handed attempts to malign LVT ("theft exemption," etc. -- <yawn>)...,
    Actually, I left that deliberately unqualified, so that you could take your own meaning from it. You declared many times that uncompensated exclusive use of land is a form of theft. Ergo, since you would allow individuals a certain amount of land for exclusive use without any compensation paid to others, "an exemption" on LVT (not LVT itself) would literally be an exemption on theft.

    Of course, it works the other way as well. You see uncompensated exclusive use of land as theft, while I see LVT as a form of theft. So it can accurately ::: yawn ::: be considered a theft exemption either way, from either POV.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    ...he was forced to admit that it is the revenue solution that aligns government's financial interests with the market's judgment...
    Hardly. Nice try, Mr. Eel. There is no doubt that such a revenue mechanism would make the state an active market participant, with its interests most certainly aligned mostly with highest bidders in its own macabre artificial arena game of Let's Everyone Fight, but I never once believed that the "market's judgment" would drive LVT, except as primarily governed by the state's judgment (e.g., artificial scarcity via zoning laws, or decisions on which lands to withhold from the market - without compensation to anyone - , etc., along with government derived formulae and methodologies for assessing rent values).
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 01-07-2012 at 10:32 PM.

  4. #1503
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Actually, I left that deliberately unqualified, so that you could take your own meaning from it. You declared many times that uncompensated exclusive use of land is a form of theft. Ergo, since you would allow individuals a certain amount of land for exclusive use without any compensation paid to others,
    Nope. Wrong AGAIN. Their exemptions ARE the compensation paid to others. The user who only uses up to the exempt amount of land compensates others for depriving them of it by not exercising HIS natural liberty right to use the land THEY choose to use exclusively for free.
    "an exemption" on LVT (not LVT itself) would literally be an exemption on theft.
    Refuted.
    Of course, it works the other way as well. You see uncompensated exclusive use of land as theft, while I see LVT as a form of theft.
    The difference being, of course, that I can support my view with fact and logic.
    There is no doubt that such a revenue mechanism would make the state an active market participant,
    No more than any other trustee honorably discharging his responsibilities.
    with its interests most certainly aligned mostly with highest bidders in its own macabre artificial arena game of Let's Everyone Fight,
    That's just a silly lie from you, of course. There is nothing artificial (let alone "macabre," LOL!) about market bidding, nor is any fighting involved. You know this.
    but I never once believed that the "market's judgment" would drive LVT, except as primarily governed by the state's judgment (e.g., artificial scarcity via zoning laws,
    Nope. You're wrong AGAIN. The LVT authority's financial incentive is to match the most productive users and uses with each parcel, because that maximizes total revenue. Zoning laws create artificial scarcity NOW because they are imposed for the unearned profit of politically connected landowners, speculators, and developers at the expense of everyone else. It is in fact the current system of private landowner privilege, by contrast, that creates an artificial game of Let's Everyone Fight, by giving every landowner a financial incentive to get government to stop productive use of all the other landowners' land.
    or decisions on which lands to withhold from the market - without compensation to anyone - ,
    Lie. The exemption is compensation.
    etc., along with government derived formulae and methodologies for assessing rent values).
    Lie. The formulae and methodologies are developed to serve prospective private land users who want to know where to invest in productive capital improvements and enterprises.

    Steven, don't you understand what it means when you always have to lie in order to have anything to say at all?

  5. #1504
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    The difference being, of course, that I can support my view with fact and logic.
    That has never been the case, Roy, unless we first accept you as the lone arbiter of what constitutes both fact and logic in this entire debate, as you argue in complete circles from your own ideological premises.

    The LVT authority's financial incentive is to match the most productive users and uses with each parcel, because that maximizes total revenue.
    ...to the state. Revenue to the state. Nothing special there, as any monopoly worth its tyrannical salt is going to attempt to maximize its own revenue in exactly that way. Nothing magic there, and it is not by matching "the most productive users" with each parcel, since productivity is not a criterion. Highest valued lands are matched to the "highest paying landholders". Highest paying is all that can honestly be stated about them, with no assumption, a priori, that "highest paying" = "most productive". That's your geoist conscience-assuaging fantasy.

    Zoning laws create artificial scarcity NOW because they are imposed for the unearned profit of politically connected landowners, speculators, and developers at the expense of everyone else.
    Yeah, terrible isn't it? What if we could inflict that same market-manipulating, market-distorting evil, but this time only for good? Why, if only those zoning laws could impose artificial scarcity IN THE FUTURE, For All The Right And Just Reasons, all would be peachy and justice would finally be served! This time it wouldn't be "at the expense of everyone else" because this time the state (which we will pretend is "everyone else") would be the one restricting land use. Without compensation to anyone else. And it can do this much more efficiently, given its total monopoly on land use issuance - and land withholding. Which brings us to...

    It is in fact the current system of private landowner privilege, by contrast, that creates an artificial game of Let's Everyone Fight, by giving every landowner a financial incentive to get government to stop productive use of all the other landowners' land.
    Yeah, and somehow shifting that same financial incentive to the state is the panacea? To restrict productive use of all its own withheld lands as a way of maximizing revenue through artificial scarcity - without so much as the willingness, let alone ability, to compensate anyone for that? Sounds loopy to me, Roy, but I can see why LVT would appeal to so many Earth-worshiping, humanity hating eco-terrorists. The scarcity implications aren't lost on them.

    The formulae and methodologies are developed to serve prospective private land users who want to know where to invest in productive capital improvements and enterprises.
    Oh, is that what the formulae and methodologies are developed for? And here I thought it was just to manage the monopolistic issuance of landholding privileges in whatever way would tend to maximize state revenues.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #1505
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    [WIKI][/WIKI]


    Keep it going, it is close to overtaking the Fiji water thread.
    You're pretty good at pissing people off, give me a hand at debating with Roy.

  8. #1506
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    That has never been the case, Roy, unless we first accept you as the lone arbiter of what constitutes both fact and logic in this entire debate, as you argue in complete circles from your own ideological premises.
    No, you are lying Steven, as I have supported everything I have said with established facts of history, economics, and objective physical reality.
    ...to the state. Revenue to the state.
    That is correct. As LVT makes the state's revenue equal to the value it gives to landholders -- value it would otherwise be giving away to them in return for nothing, as a welfare subsidy giveaway at the expense of the honest and productive -- maximizing the state's revenue under LVT means maximizing the total benefit government confers on the people using the land within its jurisdiction. Indeed, as I have proved to you before but you always refuse to know, the Henry George Theorem implies that LVT is the ONLY POSSIBLE way to align government's financial interests with the people's best interests.
    Nothing special there, as any monopoly worth its tyrannical salt is going to attempt to maximize its own revenue in exactly that way.
    No, that stupid and dishonest claim has already been proved false by the indisputable facts of objective physical reality: exclusive use of land is always inherently a monopoly -- land is a canonical example of monopoly -- but although many private landowners do try to maximize their revenue by enlisting government's aid in forcibly blocking productive use of other landowners' land, often with notable success, they do so by FORCIBLY DEPRIVING OTHERS of EXISTING opportunities (i.e., by being greedy, vicious, evil, thieving, murdering parasites), not by CREATING BETTER opportunities, as government would have a financial incentive to do under LVT.
    Nothing magic there, and it is not by matching "the most productive users" with each parcel, since productivity is not a criterion.
    ROTFL!! Of course it is, you silly boy, as YOU YOURSELF ALREADY ADMITTED in post #1494. Remember? Here it is again:

    Of course, if the value of your current land exceeds your exemption amount, you'll still have to pay or get the hell out - make room for the 'more productive hands'. Can't have non-productive hands like yours standing in the way of state revenue real productivity. No rest for the weary, as the state's interests are not aligned with yours. They are perpetually aligned only with those who have more ability willingness to pay than you.

    OK, I know - if you had more you might be willing to pay more, but you don't have more, so it's all about ability now.
    See?? See how easily I prove that you lie not only about the facts of history and economics, not only about the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, not only about what I have plainly written, but about what YOU YOURSELF have plainly written?
    Highest valued lands are matched to the "highest paying landholders". Highest paying is all that can honestly be stated about them, with no assumption, a priori, that "highest paying" = "most productive". That's your geoist conscience-assuaging fantasy.
    No, Steven, that's just another stupid lie from you, of course. It's the MARKET'S JUDGMENT of who is most productive, as measured by the price paid for that use, and any attempt by you to pretend that you know better than the market is of course just further proof of your eagerness to humiliate yourself by demonstrating your ignorance and dishonesty. Is it possible that that user will not be the most productive, and will lose money? Of course. But we can't know that ahead of time, and must await the MARKET'S judgment.
    Yeah, terrible isn't it?
    I am aware that you believe robbing, starving, enslaving, torturing and murdering people is good, as long as a private landowner profits by it.
    What if we could inflict that same market-manipulating, market-distorting evil,
    Zoning is not inherently evil; it is the inescapable effect of private landowner rent seeking that makes it evil.
    but this time only for good? Why, if only those zoning laws could impose artificial scarcity IN THE FUTURE, For All The Right And Just Reasons, all would be peachy and justice would finally be served! This time it wouldn't be "at the expense of everyone else" because this time the state (which we will pretend is "everyone else")
    There is no pretense about it, stop lying.
    would be the one restricting land use. Without compensation to anyone else.
    Oh, but you already know that is a lie, don't you Steven? Of course you do. A vicious, stupid, evil and despicable lie. The uniform, universal individual LVT exemption IS compensation. You know that. Of course you do. You just decided you had better deliberately lie about it.
    Yeah, and somehow shifting that same financial incentive to the state is the panacea?
    Strawman fallacy (i.e., another lie about what I have plainly written). It eliminates that particular problem, because under LVT the state can't increase its revenue by blocking production. It can only reduce it -- unlike private landowners under the current system.
    To restrict productive use of all its own withheld lands as a way of maximizing revenue through artificial scarcity
    You're just talking stupid, irrational garbage again, Steven. The state can't maximize its revenue that way, any more than a casino owner can maximize his revenue by hiring incompetent dealers for some of his tables to drive gamblers to his other tables. It's just more stupid garbage from you.
    - without so much as the willingness, let alone ability, to compensate anyone for that?
    Stop lying. You know the exemption is compensation.
    Sounds loopy to me, Roy, but I can see why LVT would appeal to so many Earth-worshiping, humanity hating eco-terrorists. The scarcity implications aren't lost on them.
    But of course, you are just making $#!+ up again, Steven, exactly as if you were yourself an evil, lying sack of $#!+. LVT doesn't appeal to "Earth-worshiping, humanity hating eco-terrorists," because they know it increases productive use, wealth and prosperity. I have actually had vituperative disputes with such individuals over LVT, and they always, ALWAYS oppose it.

    But of course, you had to lie about that, Steven. Once you have decided to serve evil, you have no choice but to lie.
    Oh, is that what the formulae and methodologies are developed for?
    Yes. You can't erase facts from the universe by refusing to know them, Steven, sorry.
    And here I thought it was just to manage the monopolistic issuance of landholding privileges in whatever way would tend to maximize state revenues.
    THEY'RE ONLY USEFUL FOR THE LATTER BECAUSE THEY WERE DEVELOPED FOR THE FORMER. That is very much the point. Under LVT, government CAN'T DO BETTER than to let the market value the land for private users' information.

  9. #1507
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    No, you are lying Steven, as I have supported everything I have said with established facts of history, economics, and objective physical reality.
    Says who, Roy? Given that we disagree completely, whose conclusions about all of this are we relying upon? And if merely predicating whatever you say with words like "proved/proven", "indisputably", "objective", "established", "self-evident", "reality", etc., they are nonetheless your assertions only. Saying "proved, but you refuse to know" is absolutely meaningless...except to you. And you aren't that important, Roy. Neither of us are.

    ...maximizing the state's revenue under LVT means maximizing the total benefit government confers on the people using the land within its jurisdiction.
    Oh yeah? So government can actually confer greater and greater real value (on "people using the land" no less?) in its quest to maximize its land rent revenues? That's quite a trick. We didn't need a government to 'confer' such wonderful benefits, Roy. The state is the least contributor in all cases. Putting the state into a Goodfellas on-the-take position won't make it any different.

    Indeed, as I have proved to you before but you always refuse to know, the Henry George Theorem implies that LVT is the ONLY POSSIBLE way to align government's financial interests with the people's best interests.
    Your Henry George Theorem doesn't prove a damned thing. Even the mathematical derivative of the original by Arnott and Stiglitz only states that under certain conditions, land rent roughly approximates government spending. The addle-brained, class warfare conscious, wealth redistribution-minded see this, and ::: LIGHT BULB ::: "Wow! That's the ticket! The non-Marxist, neo-communist Holy Grail! Why, duh, geeeee, that would be enough revenue to fund government all by itself! Now -- if the state could just abolish land ownership entirely, and then channel those same land rents to itself via a confiscatory tax ..."

    And as usual, you conflate government with people - and honestly believe that if government's financial interests are somehow "aligned with the interests" of those who are willing to pay the most to government (what a joke), this will automatically equate to what is in "the people's" best interests. Stow your simplistic, naive and altruistic assumptions about the state, Roy. The State and The People are distinguished in our Constitution for a very good reason. They are not the same thing, regardless of the political regime or any sentiments or stated intentions. People are not identical units, and commerce is not an homogenous blob, nor is commerce equivalent to The People and their "best interests" either.

    ROTFL!! Of course it is, you silly boy, as YOU YOURSELF ALREADY ADMITTED in post #1494. Remember? Here it is again:
    Of course, if the value of your current land exceeds your exemption amount, you'll still have to pay or get the hell out - make room for the 'more productive hands'.
    You missed the quotes, Roy ('more productive hands'), like someone who holds up two hands with curled "quotes" fingers in the air before using a term in a way that is akin to sarcasm. That was me crawling into the prison that is your own mind to argue from your own premises with you. And you, so imprisoned by your own delusions, so wedded to your own premises, missed that I might be calling your precious bride an ugly pig. That whole post #1494 was just that.

    Is it possible that that user will not be the most productive, and will lose money? Of course.
    More importantly, and the part you are missing, is that is entirely possible for a user to profit without being productive at all. Rent-seeking isn't just about land, Roy. You should know that. And don't EVER forget that I would never agree, that land value is largely the result of community, government services and infrastructure, any more than I would attribute the value of a home to the construction hands, landscaper, security guards, etc., who may be hired along the way. Screw your infrastructure. Take the state's hand out of that bucket and watch the infrastructure get created regardless. And more efficiently.

    The fact that you believe robbing, starving, enslaving, torturing and murdering people is good, as long as the state profits from it means nothing to me.

    Zoning is not inherently evil; it is the inescapable effect of private landowner rent seeking that makes it evil.
    Yes, zoning is inherently evil, Roy. The principle itself is evil, with no exceptions to the rule. You see what a thief gains, and mistakenly believe that the state can somehow assume the role of the thief, as it is somehow incapable of theft. That's beyond nasty, Roy. There is no proper role for theft in society.

    To restrict productive use of all its own withheld lands as a way of maximizing revenue through artificial scarcity
    The state can't maximize its revenue that way, any more than a casino owner can maximize his revenue by hiring incompetent dealers for some of his tables to drive gamblers to his other tables.
    Roy, are you really that retarded? An increase in the scarcity of ANYTHING in demand, be it land, good, or service, drives up its value. That's fundamental, Roy. Really elementary stuff that virtually no economist, mainstream or Austrian, disagrees with. Zoning laws and withholding of lands produces artificial scarcity, which does artificially drive UP the value of lands. By withholding land from usage, you really can maximize its value, and therefore revenues, by getting more resources chasing fewer lands.

    Is it really possible that you are truly blind to that fact?

    But of course, you are just making $#!+ up again, Steven, exactly as if you were yourself an evil, lying sack of $#!+. LVT doesn't appeal to "Earth-worshiping, humanity hating eco-terrorists," because they know it increases productive use, wealth and prosperity. I have actually had vituperative disputes with such individuals over LVT, and they always, ALWAYS oppose it.
    Oh yeah? I guess you weren't talking to anyone from the Green Party of the UK, with its Policies for a Sustainable Society [LINK], as they pretty much adopted every tenet of the Georgist/Geoist ideology, and LVT as you have described it, as their manifesto regarding land usage. And their proposed policies?

    Policies

    Land-use planning and registry

    LD300 Criteria for reformed and strengthened land-use planning should include:

    a)protection of sites of special importance as habitats or amenity value; (read = withholding land for use)
    b)support for the overall sustainability of the economy;
    c)promotion of community self-reliance;
    d)devolution of decision-making on land-use to community level; (read = state = zoning)
    e)best use of land already developed, especially in urban areas; (read = state = zoning)
    f)reduced pressure for inappropriate building on green-field sites.
    Policies

    Townscapes and landscape with buildings


    LP400 As far as possible any development within present cities should be confined within the city boundaries, the intention being not to encroach on any more agricultural land. For similar reasons development brought about by the needs of population dispersal should be sited on derelict or other poor quality land within the confines of an existing built-up area. However, the need for urban green spaces, both formal and informal, should be recognised and these spaces should be protected.

    LP401 Housing densities should be increased by high quality design incorporating a reduction in road and parking space, keeping vehicles to the edge of site wherever possible. Car-free developments should also be encouraged, especially in areas close to amenities or with good public transport. (see TR036)

    LP402 Derelict land, particularly from extractive industries, should be improved for re-use, not only for recreational purposes, but for housing and light industry. Such sites should only be developed in a way which does not lead to the loss of wildlife habitats or biodiversity. (see LD300-301)

    LP403 However, the effects of climate change will mean that it will no longer be practical for the continued use of some sites, including many homes, which are now liable to regular flooding. Such derelict land should be re-landscaped rather than re-developed, and the practice of developing reclaimed marshland should be ended. Central government should also help those who are most affected. Government insurance schemes should be available to offer cover for those refused flooding cover by commercial companies, and there should financial assistance to help with relocation for those whose properties have become uninhabitable

    LP404 Planning regulations should be adjusted so that zoning is discouraged. Strict segregation of residential, industrial and commercial areas kills the natural growth of a community. Provided that there is no excessive nuisance all types of building can mix as they have done in the most vigorous communities in the past.

    LP405 Policy planning guidance, building regulations, and advice to local authorities will be amended so that local plans reflect the needs of the existing local population and are sustainable (see HO505). Local plans should encourage traditional local designs and innovative energy saving technologies.

    LP406 Close proximity of workplaces, homes and services cuts down commuter movement and saves energy and time.

    LP407 By allowing small part-time businesses, workshops, etc., to spring up in housing areas, incentives will be available for people to use their leisure time for useful part-time work at home, all of which will add to the national stock and to the character of the community.

    LP408 Where segregation by building types is necessary the isolated industrial unit needs humanising with pedestrian access, planted areas and recreational space.

    LP409 New building developments and road systems should be designed and existing systems adapted in accordance with the transport hierarchy (see TR030). They should provide:

    convenient safe and pleasant access for pedestrians and cyclists;

    convenient and safe access to affordable public transport;

    measures to control dangerous and unsociable driving (especially speeding).

    LP410 New residential developments should be designed as 'home zones', where pedestrians have priority and other forms of transport must travel at a maximum of 10mph. (see TR116)

    LP411 Parking space for bicycles should be provided in all new developments. Residential developments should also provide secure bicycle storage, either communally or in each dwelling

    LP412 Removing an existing building, or part of it, has just as much impact on the nature of the surrounding built environment as a new building or extension. Therefore, planning permission should be required for demolition or partial demolition, to the same extent as it is required to build or extend.

    LP413 Planning decisions should be taken at as decentralised a level as reasonably possible. Although welcoming some regional co-ordination of planning (the 'Regional Planning Guidance' process), Local Authorities should retain democratic accountability for the development and therefore the planning process within their boundaries.

    LVT appeals to the Greenies, Roy, precisely because it gives the state carte blanche to maximize revenues by artificially incentivizing the state to withhold land from usage, and to dictate control over the types of usage of remaining available lands, WITHOUT compensation to anyone. What private landowners do separately to maximize value of their rents, the state would do the same, and more. ON CRACK.

    Again, the lying, clueless, well-intending but evil, LVT-pushing camel's nose needs to be chopped off for even approaching the tent. No ability to smell. Just blood gushing from what was once an idiotic face.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 01-09-2012 at 03:20 AM.

  10. #1508
    OK Roy, going back to revisit a few of your biggest fallacies... (each in bold)

    FALLACY #1
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy
    Price is determined by supply and demand, so as the supply of land is fixed, its price is determined solely by demand.
    The total supply (total area) of land on Earth is fixed, but the total supply of land which is available to a given usage or purpose is artificially determined by the state, through a) zoning laws, and b) withholding of 'protected' lands which are held in reserve by the state (read = MOST), restricted from any usage whatsoever, and c) the question of scalability of Henry George Theorem itself, as proponents and later administrators attempt to [artificially] determine an "optimum" community size. Available land supply for a given purpose is, therefore, as deliberately scarce as it is highly elastic -- anything but fixed. Ergo, its price is affected by both demand and artificial scarcity of supply.

    FALLACY #2
    Demand for land arises from the economic advantage obtainable by using it. This advantage comes from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides (the landowner providing nothing).
    That final statement ("the landowner providing nothing") is a flagrant self-contradiction.You cannot include "opportunities and amenities the community provides" as a factor which adds value to land while simultaneously failing to recognize the self-evident fact that the landowner/landholder may well be, in most cases, a key producer of the very "opportunities and amenities the community provides" -- even a full participant, and sometimes major or even primary "provider", as in the case of a small community that depends upon a single large factory for the bulk of its wages and productivity. All other "opportunities and amenities" may be provided by neighboring communities, but that single factory may be the sole source of "opportunities" for that particular community - which means that this factory does indeed (according to you) contribute to the value of the land upon which that factory rests.

    Under any regime, if I am an exclusive landholder engaged in commerce that benefits the community, I am, by definition, one of the community "providers" of opportunities and/or amenities, and I am, therefore, and by YOUR reckoning, at least part of what gives land its value. Try and collectivize that.

    FALLACY #3
    A tax on land value does not affect that advantage (i.e., the user does not care if he pays the rent to a private landowner or the government; the difference is just that the government is the source of the economic advantage he gains by using the land, and the landowner isn't).
    Firstly, you are not in a position to project your sensibilities onto others in terms of what they care or do not care about. A user that was previously an unencumbered landowner (not absentee, owner of the enterprise which is located on land that he previously owned outright) never made rent payments to anyone in the first place, and would certainly "care" about going from no rent payments to a perpetual rent payment to the state. Secondly, I don't know of any rent-paying firm that would not be delighted to pay no rent, without regard to whether the rent collector was public or private.

    ...and your notion that the landowner/(economically productive occupier) is not a source of economic advantage that gives value to land was proved false above, as he provides part of the "opportunities and amenities" you credit "the community" with providing.

    FALLACY #4
    The landowner cannot pass on the tax, because he can't affect either supply or demand. This is very different from the situation with income tax, sales tax, etc. where the people who pay the tax CAN affect supply and/or demand.
    You used a Marshallian economic model of price, with the conclusion that price is actually determined by supply and demand, almost as if consumer goods and services were items traded on a commodities exchange. On the scale of the community, and the individual firm, the economic model of price, as applied to specific firms is a gross oversimplification which completely ignores the degree to which, a) perfect competition exists (a fundamental assumption of supply and demand as determinant of price), - b) price variance regardless of competition c) individual buyer and seller behavior and preferences, and d) what buyers and sellers agree upon, or "what the market will bear", which includes sellers' supply, costs and future expectations on one side, and buyers' demand, as determined by each individual purchase.

    You applied the economic model of price to individual firms under an LVT regime, claiming that it was somehow impossible for a landholder to pass LVT rent payments to the consumer, based solely on what you believed to be the fact that a seller was unable to affect supply or demand (of its own goods or services no less). However, what you failed to recognize is that rent is always factored in as a cost of goods which affects owner equity. Furthermore, in a perfectly competitive environment under an LVT regime, you would need to assume that all similar competing firms' costs would have similar LVT expenses of their own, which could be safely be factored into their cost of goods as well - meaning they could all safely raise their prices to reflect (pass onto the consumer) their rent costs. Which they would. All would.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 01-09-2012 at 05:52 AM.

  11. #1509
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    I am gladdened to hear you know with such exactness what I believe. I am confused when this confident and exact knowledge seems to be at variance with what I had thought I believed, especially since I had presented it multiple times fairly clearly and further clarified it after questions.

    But, what do I know?

    I thought you were not a pure rhetorical agenda-bot. You were able to comprehend sentences and reply to them in an interesting and relevant way which I could not necessarily anticipate in advance. Now you're acting like just another Roy. Oh well! Merry Christmas to All and to All a Good Night!
    We discussed this when I posted the Rothbard excerpt from The Ethics of Liberty. You said you disagree with him on labor being a requirement to claim land. If I missed anything else then please correct me.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  12. #1510
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    We discussed this when I posted the Rothbard excerpt from The Ethics of Liberty. You said you disagree with him on labor being a requirement to claim land. If I missed anything else then please correct me.
    It was a little more complex than that. I think that there are a variety of factors which make a claim more or less likely to be valid, and undertaking transformation of the claimed resource is one of the biggest ones, probably the biggest. The size of the claim, the nature of the resource, the location of the resource, what kind of transformation you're doing, how far along the transformation is, and on and on, all play into its justice. It would be very difficult to establish a just claim without having done any labor whatsoever. In fact, I can't think of a case where that would be possible.

  13. #1511
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    It would be very difficult to establish a just claim without having done any labor whatsoever. In fact, I can't think of a case where that would be possible.
    Oh, that's easy. Just call it a birthright. An equal and inalienable "right of access and usage" inheritance. Then we all become joint heirs, fully and equally entitled, in theory, with no labor required. The state is not the owner, but rather more like the executor of a will. This will never gets fully executed, of course. The heirs are treated as minors, idiots, incompetents - wards of the state in perpetuity, under the governance of local trustees who must be appointed/elected/whatever.

    Innat wonderful?

    The joint heirs remain joint heirs forever - but only as joint wards of the [e]state. There are no individual claims of ownership of land, as that would violate the equal claims of the others (in that community only). Furthermore, the strength of your individual claim of access and usage very much depends on your proximity to the center of the community - with a Catch-22, as proximity to the center is also dependent on your ability and willingness to pay more than your fellow so-called heirs - given they will give more in return for what has been taken from you (and everyone else).

    This all forms a nice theoretical circle of value returned by others in exchange for value taken from you, as a member of the community. How these "returns of value" get back to you and the others is another story. It is not returned directly to you or any other joint heir. The community is acting as a corporation, which may or may not pay any dividends, and which may or may not owe you, an equal shareholder, anything at all.

    You, me, and everyone else, who are tantamount to idiots and wards of the state, cannot receive a return of stolen value directly. This "return of value", in the form of land rents collected, is to the [e]state itself only, not to you, which state will then decide what to do that is in the best interests of the estate. This is why it is a form of fascism, or statist capitalism, with the full assumption that whatever serves the best interests of the estate is also in the best interests of the wards, or "joint heirs" thereof.

    In other words, whatever the state collects and uses, even if all the majority of that revenue was used to provide more infrastructure to the center of the community, is all counted as full remuneration to you.

    That is where the Catch-22 comes full circle, because the strength and quality of your "equal right of access and usage" claim, as a ward of the trustees who exercise full control of the rules of the estate, fully depends on your proximity to the center of that estate/community. In other words, you have to be in a community to have any claim, but proximity to the center once you are in the community boundaries is only available to those who can promise to pay more. Those who are in the center: pay the most, and have the greatest claim. The further you get from the center, the less you pay, and the less claim you have.

    Oh, and when a community provides infrastructure, so that you can have an easier commute from the outskirts to the center - that somehow counts as better "access" to the center. Not exclusive usage. Just "access".

    That's fine, you say. Screw that community, its rules, and all of its well-established power pyramids. You have a pioneering spirit, and recognize that there is PLENTY of land available on the Earth, for which you, a proper and devout believer in Georgist/Geoist principles, have an equal right of access to - one that extends to use of ALL other lands, most of which is unused. Just go completely out of that community, you think, and into between-community lands that no community uses. From there you may not even have to compete with those in other communities. But you might be able, given enough time. Why, you can establish a community of your own.

    No. You cannot do that. That forbidden fruit is the rank hypocrisy of Georgist ideology's Garden of Eden Collectives, as you will not be permitted to use, and you will have no claim on, between-community lands. Too many of your fellow Georgist ideologues have erroneously concluded that community precedes all else; not just as a matter of possibility, but by legislative decree. Thus, you may not live without proximity to an already existing, established community. Not because you are unable, or physically incapable, but because the state will not permit it. Communities are FIAT. Like legal tender, it is not a question of whether you will belong to an existing community, but only which community you will belong to at any given time.

  14. #1512
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Says who, Roy? Given that we disagree completely, whose conclusions about all of this are we relying upon?
    I'm not relying on anyone's conclusions. I'm just informing you of what has occurred.
    And if merely predicating whatever you say with words like "proved/proven", "indisputably", "objective", "established", "self-evident", "reality", etc., they are nonetheless your assertions only.
    No. Facts do not somehow cease to be facts just because you call them "assertions only" and refuse to know them.
    Saying "proved, but you refuse to know" is absolutely meaningless...except to you.
    No, it accurately describes the situation: you have been proved wrong; you know you have been proved wrong; but to preserve your false and evil beliefs, you simply refuse to know the facts that prove you wrong.
    Oh yeah? So government can actually confer greater and greater real value (on "people using the land" no less?) in its quest to maximize its land rent revenues? That's quite a trick.
    No, it's inevitable under LVT.
    We didn't need a government to 'confer' such wonderful benefits, Roy.
    Yes, we did, as the invariable absence of land value in places without government proves.
    The state is the least contributor in all cases.
    That is puerile "meeza hatesa gubmint" chanting.
    Putting the state into a Goodfellas on-the-take position won't make it any different.
    It is the private landowner who is running an extortion racket, as already proved: he needs the land user, the land user doesn't need him.
    Your Henry George Theorem doesn't prove a damned thing.
    It proves what it says: to the extent that government spending on services and infrastructure benefits the public, it benefits landowners exclusively.
    Even the mathematical derivative of the original by Arnott and Stiglitz only states that under certain conditions, land rent roughly approximates government spending.
    Nope. Under certain conditions, it is EXACTLY EQUAL to government spending, and any deviation from that condition merely indicates a deviation from those not-very-unrealistic conditions.
    The addle-brained, class warfare conscious,
    It's a funny kind of class warfare where the only class that is ever accused of waging it is also the only class that ever takes any casualties...
    wealth redistribution-minded
    It is landowner privilege -- i.e., lack of LVT -- that redistributes wealth from its producers to idle landowners.
    see this, and ::: LIGHT BULB ::: "Wow! That's the ticket! The non-Marxist, neo-communist Holy Grail! Why, duh, geeeee, that would be enough revenue to fund government all by itself! Now -- if the state could just abolish land ownership entirely, and then channel those same land rents to itself via a confiscatory tax ..."
    Maybe a confiscatory tax on slaves would have been a better way to abolish slavery than fighting a bloody war.
    And as usual, you conflate government with people
    There is no agency but government that can secure and reconcile the equal rights of all the people. That fact is not a conflation of government with people. Stop lying.
    - and honestly believe that if government's financial interests are somehow "aligned with the interests" of those who are willing to pay the most to government (what a joke),
    That's not what I said, so you can stop lying.

    Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: you can't.
    this will automatically equate to what is in "the people's" best interests. Stow your simplistic, naive and altruistic assumptions about the state, Roy.
    I made no such assumptions, but simply identified the nature of the relevant economic incentives. Stop lying.
    The State and The People are distinguished in our Constitution for a very good reason. They are not the same thing, regardless of the political regime or any sentiments or stated intentions. People are not identical units, and commerce is not an homogenous blob, nor is commerce equivalent to The People and their "best interests" either.
    And the sad thing is, you probably imagine that is relevant.
    You missed the quotes, Roy ('more productive hands'), like someone who holds up two hands with curled "quotes" fingers in the air before using a term in a way that is akin to sarcasm. That was me crawling into the prison that is your own mind to argue from your own premises with you. And you, so imprisoned by your own delusions, so wedded to your own premises, missed that I might be calling your precious bride an ugly pig. That whole post #1494 was just that.
    When you are caught in a self-contradiction, just claim you were joking. Cute.

    Is there some reason why I would continue to respond to such despicable dishonesty? Help me out, here.
    More importantly, and the part you are missing, is that is entirely possible for a user to profit without being productive at all.
    Not by paying land rent, it isn't.
    Rent-seeking isn't just about land, Roy. You should know that.
    So, explain for me again exactly how, if the landholder is not using the land productively, his rent payment is contributing to his profits?
    And don't EVER forget that I would never agree, that land value is largely the result of community, government services and infrastructure,
    I am aware that you refuse to know all relevant facts. That is why debate with you is pointless, other than as an object lesson to readers on the character of all apologists for landowner privilege.
    any more than I would attribute the value of a home to the construction hands, landscaper, security guards, etc., who may be hired along the way.
    Right: you refuse to know the fact that if a house had not been constructed, landscaped, etc., it would not have any value.
    Screw your infrastructure.
    Screw your refusal to know facts.
    Take the state's hand out of that bucket and watch the infrastructure get created regardless.
    I'm still watching, 5,000 years later, but it never happened anywhere there has been no state. And I mean ANYWHERE.
    And more efficiently.
    Never happened. Ever.
    The fact that you believe robbing, starving, enslaving, torturing and murdering people is good, as long as the state profits from it means nothing to me.
    The state is not a profit-making venture. It spends its revenue to provide goods and services (some of which may not be desirable, granted, depending on how democratic it is).
    Yes, zoning is inherently evil, Roy.
    No, that's just stupid garbage from you, Steven.
    The principle itself is evil, with no exceptions to the rule.
    No, your claims are just puerile "meeza hatesa gubmint" garbage, Steven, with no exceptions to the rule.
    You see what a thief gains, and mistakenly believe that the state can somehow assume the role of the thief,
    Lie. Unlike an LVT-funded state, a thief does not recover value he has himself created. It is the bandit/landowner in the pass who is the thief, as already proved.
    as it is somehow incapable of theft.
    It is taxes OTHER THAN LVT that are state thefts -- thefts whose proceeds are given to landowners.

    You always have to lie about what I have plainly written. Always.
    That's beyond nasty, Roy. There is no proper role for theft in society.
    And the example of the bandit in the pass proves it is landowners who are the thieves.
    Roy, are you really that retarded? An increase in the scarcity of ANYTHING in demand, be it land, good, or service, drives up its value. That's fundamental, Roy.
    No, it's false, absurd, and stupid anti-economic twaddle. Do you really think that Microsoft could make more money just by making fewer copies of Windoze? REALLY??

    Do you really think that if the world's wheat crop was wiped out by some new disease, and only a few tons of stored wheat were left, that those few tons would be worth more than all the millions of tons of a normal world wheat crop? REALLY??

    Do you really think that if an art collector bought up all the extant works of some dead artist, he could make his collection more valuable by just burning a few canvases every now and then? REALLY??

    Steven, are you really that retarded?

    REALLY???
    Really elementary stuff that virtually no economist, mainstream or Austrian, disagrees with.
    LOL!! You are hilariously wrong about that really elementary stuff, Steven, because you are not an economist, and you have not asked the opinion of one.
    Zoning laws and withholding of lands produces artificial scarcity, which does artificially drive UP the value of lands.
    It drives up the value of OTHER land, but only at the expense of the value of the land withheld. Total land value (which is what an LVT-funded government is interested in) is always reduced by artificially holding land idle.
    By withholding land from usage, you really can maximize its value, and therefore revenues, by getting more resources chasing fewer lands.
    No, you cannot. Your claims are prima facie absurd anti-economic garbage because you do not comprehend the implications of monopoly control of a fixed supply.
    Is it really possible that you are truly blind to that fact?
    It's not a fact. It's just stupid, anti-economic garbage, as proved, repeat, PROVED above.
    Oh yeah? I guess you weren't talking to anyone from the Green Party of the UK, with its Policies for a Sustainable Society [LINK], as they pretty much adopted every tenet of the Georgist/Geoist ideology, and LVT as you have described it, as their manifesto regarding land usage. And their proposed policies?
    UK Green Party policies are an inconsistent mish-mash of ideas that have attained some threshold of political acceptability, and cannot honestly be described as "Earth-worshiping humanity-hating eco-terrorist."
    LVT appeals to the Greenies, Roy,
    It appeals to many of the ones who aren't "Earth-worshiping humanity-hating eco-terrorists."
    precisely because it gives the state carte blanche to maximize revenues by artificially incentivizing the state to withhold land from usage,
    Stupid anti-economic garbage.
    and to dictate control over the types of usage of remaining available lands, WITHOUT compensation to anyone. What private landowners do separately to maximize value of their rents, the state would do the same, and more. ON CRACK.
    Nope. Can't happen, because unlike certain people, the state is not a blithering economic ignoramus.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #1513
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    the state is not a blithering economic ignoramus.

  17. #1514
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    the state is not a blithering economic ignoramus.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    +a zillion
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 01-09-2012 at 10:15 PM.
    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

  18. #1515
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    the state is not a blithering economic ignoramus.
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    +a zillion
    To infinity and beyond!

    Well, Roy, what can I say, but that once again...

    ...you have been proved wrong; you know you have been proved wrong; but to preserve your false and evil beliefs, you simply refuse to know the facts that prove you wrong.

    ^^^ Just a little trick I learned on how to know for sure that I won an argument. This is based on my sure knowledge that even my opponent knows that he is wrong, but just refuses to know facts, and continues to spout off the same nonsense over and over again to preserve his false and evil beliefs. This is, of course, self-evident, indisputable, and based on objective physical reality.

    the state is not a blithering economic ignoramus - Roy L.

    meeza hatesa gubmint - Steven Douglas

    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 01-09-2012 at 11:01 PM.

  19. #1516
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Price is determined by supply and demand, so as the supply of land is fixed, its price is determined solely by demand.
    The total supply (total area) of land on Earth is fixed, but the total supply of land which is available to a given usage or purpose is artificially determined by the state, through a) zoning laws, and b) withholding of 'protected' lands which are held in reserve by the state (read = MOST), restricted from any usage whatsoever, and c) the question of scalability of Henry George Theorem itself, as proponents and later administrators attempt to [artificially] determine an "optimum" community size.
    Gibberish.
    Available land supply for a given purpose is, therefore, as deliberately scarce as it is highly elastic -- anything but fixed.
    It is completely inelastic, as it does not respond to price.

    You just don't understand why that refutes your "argument," because you are a total economic ignoramus.
    Ergo, its price is affected by both demand and artificial scarcity of supply.
    The condition of "artificial scarcity" IS the fixed supply, because it is unaffected by price.

    You just don't understand what that means, because you are a total economic ignoramus.
    Demand for land arises from the economic advantage obtainable by using it. This advantage comes from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides (the landowner providing nothing).
    That final statement ("the landowner providing nothing") is a flagrant self-contradiction.
    It is fact.
    You cannot include "opportunities and amenities the community provides" as a factor which adds value to land while simultaneously failing to recognize the self-evident fact that the landowner/landholder may well be, in most cases,
    Ignoratio elenchi fallacy. The fact that a pedophile may well be, in most cases, contributing to the opportunities and amenities the community provides does not mean that pedophiles make land more desirable. It just means that people who HAPPEN TO BE pedophiles are often also doing other things in their lives that contribute to making land more desirable. Landowners do not provide anything to the land user QUA landowners any more than pedophiles do QUA pedophiles.

    GET IT??
    a key producer of the very "opportunities and amenities the community provides" -- even a full participant, and sometimes major or even primary "provider", as in the case of a small community that depends upon a single large factory for the bulk of its wages and productivity.
    A factory is not land, and building a factory is not owning land. The fact that a pedophile or landowner may own a factory does not mean that pedophiles or landowners provide the bulk -- or any -- of the wages and productivity in a town. You just can't find a willingness to know such facts.
    All other "opportunities and amenities" may be provided by neighboring communities, but that single factory may be the sole source of "opportunities" for that particular community - which means that this factory does indeed (according to you) contribute to the value of the land upon which that factory rests.
    By definition, the unimproved value of the land is the value it would have if the factory were removed and the land reverted to its natural state. The factory may therefore contribute to the value of nearby land, but by definition cannot contribute to the unimproved value of the parcel it is sitting on.
    Under any regime, if I am an exclusive landholder engaged in commerce that benefits the community, I am, by definition, one of the community "providers" of opportunities and/or amenities, and I am, therefore, and by YOUR reckoning, at least part of what gives land its value. Try and collectivize that.
    <sigh> Is your statement any less true if the words, "an exclusive landholder" are deleted? How, then, does your being an exclusive landholder augment the opportunities and amenities you are providing through your engagement in commercial enterprise?

    See how easily all your "arguments" are proved fallacious and absurd?
    A tax on land value does not affect that advantage (i.e., the user does not care if he pays the rent to a private landowner or the government; the difference is just that the government is the source of the economic advantage he gains by using the land, and the landowner isn't).
    Firstly, you are not in a position to project your sensibilities onto others in terms of what they care or do not care about.
    <sigh> It's nothing to do with my sensibilities, Steven, are you really that retarded? The arm's-length nature of market transactions -- that participants are indifferent as to whom they trade with -- is a given, a basic assumption of economic analysis (which is presumably why you are ignorant of it).
    A user that was previously an unencumbered landowner (not absentee, owner of the enterprise which is located on land that he previously owned outright) never made rent payments to anyone in the first place,
    He made all the rent payments in advance when he bought the land.
    and would certainly "care" about going from no rent payments to a perpetual rent payment to the state.
    He only cares in his capacity as landOWNER, not land USER.
    Secondly, I don't know of any rent-paying firm that would not be delighted to pay no rent, without regard to whether the rent collector was public or private.
    That is not one of the options. You just can't permit yourself to know the fact that a firm's status as tenant or owner of the land under its premises does not affect its production decisions, it only affects whether it is a landowner or not.
    ...and your notion that the landowner/(economically productive occupier)
    Those are two entirely different things, Steven. You just have to refuse to know that fact.
    is not a source of economic advantage that gives value to land was proved false above, as he provides part of the "opportunities and amenities" you credit "the community" with providing.
    The landowner provides exactly as much of the opportunities and amenities the community provides as the pedophile does, and in exactly the same sense: purely by coincidence.
    The landowner cannot pass on the tax, because he can't affect either supply or demand. This is very different from the situation with income tax, sales tax, etc. where the people who pay the tax CAN affect supply and/or demand.
    You used a Marshallian economic model of price, with the conclusion that price is actually determined by supply and demand, almost as if consumer goods and services were items traded on a commodities exchange. On the scale of the community, and the individual firm, the economic model of price, as applied to specific firms is a gross oversimplification which completely ignores the degree to which, a) perfect competition exists (a fundamental assumption of supply and demand as determinant of price),
    Wrong. There is no such assumption. You are just an economic ignoramus.
    - b) price variance regardless of competition c) individual buyer and seller behavior and preferences, and d) what buyers and sellers agree upon, or "what the market will bear", which includes sellers' supply, costs and future expectations on one side, and buyers' demand, as determined by each individual purchase.
    Irrelevant gobbledegook.
    You applied the economic model of price to individual firms under an LVT regime, claiming that it was somehow impossible for a landholder to pass LVT rent payments to the consumer, based solely on what you believed to be the fact
    That LVT cannot be passed on to consumers is a fact of economics that has been known for 200 years. It is merely a fact that is not known to YOU, because you do not know any economics.
    that a seller was unable to affect supply or demand (of its own goods or services no less).
    The landowner qua landowner does not provide any good or service. All he does is demand money for staying out of the way, like the bandit in the pass or a protection racketeer.
    However, what you failed to recognize is that rent is always factored in as a cost of goods which affects owner equity.
    Land rent is not a cost of goods, it is a measure of economic advantage. It is the same whether any goods are produced on the site or not, so it cannot be a cost of goods.
    Furthermore, in a perfectly competitive environment under an LVT regime, you would need to assume that all similar competing firms' costs would have similar LVT expenses of their own, which could be safely be factored into their cost of goods as well - meaning they could all safely raise their prices to reflect (pass onto the consumer) their rent costs. Which they would. All would.
    Nope. They can't. The firms that are currently tenants have no increase in their costs, as the Law of Rent proves, so their landowning competitors can't raise prices without losing market share.

  20. #1517
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    To infinity and beyond!

    Well, Roy, what can I say, but that once again...

    ...you have been proved wrong; you know you have been proved wrong; but to preserve your false and evil beliefs, you simply refuse to know the facts that prove you wrong.

    ^^^ Just a little trick I learned on how to know for sure that I won an argument. This is based on my sure knowledge that even my opponent knows that he is wrong, but just refuses to know facts, and continues to spout off the same nonsense over and over again to preserve his false and evil beliefs. This is, of course, self-evident, indisputable, and based on objective physical reality.

    the state is not a blithering economic ignoramus - Roy L.

    meeza hatesa gubmint - Steven Douglas

    What's most interesting about Roy's claim about the State is that it is contradictory to Geoist thought. (Geoism is)"a "political philosophy that holds along with other forms of libertarian individualism that each individual has an exclusive right to the fruits of his or her labor, as opposed to this product being owned collectively by society or the community. Geolibertarianism (also known as geoanarchism) is, in a sense, a branch of anarcho-capitalism, taking its tenets from Locke, Jefferson, and Smith." ~Wikipedia The claim that the State is "not a blithering economic ignoramus" is fundamentally at odds with the Geoists seem to stand for. Very interesting.
    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

  21. #1518
    This thred still going? No, no, no, and Hell NO.

  22. #1519
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    What's most interesting about Roy's claim about the State is that it is contradictory to Geoist thought. (Geoism is)"a "political philosophy that holds along with other forms of libertarian individualism that each individual has an exclusive right to the fruits of his or her labor, as opposed to this product being owned collectively by society or the community. Geolibertarianism (also known as geoanarchism) is, in a sense, a branch of anarcho-capitalism, taking its tenets from Locke, Jefferson, and Smith." ~Wikipedia The claim that the State is "not a blithering economic ignoramus" is fundamentally at odds with the Geoists seem to stand for. Very interesting.
    I've noticed that as well - especially using arguments practically plagiarized from geolibs and mainstream economists who double in the finance and accounting worlds, just to see if Roy agreed with any of their premises. The only time he ever liked anything I wrote - he lit up like a Christmas tree, in fact - was in post #1494, when I took great pains to argue my points using only his words, phrased strictly according to Roy's peculiar geolibertarian heterox verbiage.

    Yep. A one of a kind, lone voice crying in the wilderness, and no doubt a turd in the Geolibertarian punchbowl.

  23. #1520
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    What's most interesting about Roy's claim about the State is that it is contradictory to Geoist thought.
    What's incredibly dull about all hb's claims is that they are stupid lies.
    (Geoism is)"a "political philosophy that holds along with other forms of libertarian individualism that each individual has an exclusive right to the fruits of his or her labor, as opposed to this product being owned collectively by society or the community.
    No contradiction there.
    Geolibertarianism (also known as geoanarchism) is, in a sense, a branch of anarcho-capitalism, taking its tenets from Locke, Jefferson, and Smith." ~Wikipedia
    I am not an anarchist, geo-anarchist or anarcho-capitalist, and have never claimed to be. I am more or less a geolibertarian, although I do think that democratic governments funded by LVT would likely choose to provide more services and infrastructure than current governments, just because such investments would no longer involve such large welfare subsidy giveaways to landowners.
    The claim that the State is "not a blithering economic ignoramus" is fundamentally at odds with the Geoists seem to stand for.
    No, that's just a fabrication on your part. The geoist position is that the state has its legitimate role: to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor.
    Very interesting.
    Wish I could say the same....



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #1521
    Quote Originally Posted by bossman068410 View Post
    This thred still going? No, no, no, and Hell NO.

  26. #1522
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Oh, that's easy. Just call it a birthright.
    Identifying the fact of natural liberty.
    An equal and inalienable "right of access and usage" inheritance. Then we all become joint heirs, fully and equally entitled, in theory, with no labor required.
    Rights are things we inherit from our forebears without having to work or pay for them.
    The state is not the owner, but rather more like the executor of a will. This will never gets fully executed, of course. The heirs are treated as minors, idiots, incompetents
    Someone here evidently is projecting....
    - wards of the state in perpetuity, under the governance of local trustees who must be appointed/elected/whatever.

    Innat wonderful?

    The joint heirs remain joint heirs forever - but only as joint wards of the [e]state.
    Pure fabrication.
    There are no individual claims of ownership of land, as that would violate the equal claims of the others (in that community only). Furthermore, the strength of your individual claim of access and usage very much depends on your proximity to the center of the community - with a Catch-22, as proximity to the center is also dependent on your ability and willingness to pay more than your fellow so-called heirs - given they will give more in return for what has been taken from you (and everyone else).
    Another fabrication. Everyone is at liberty to be as close to the center as they please -- but the closer to the center they want to be, the less land they will be able to deprive others of without making just compensation.
    This all forms a nice theoretical circle of value returned by others in exchange for value taken from you, as a member of the community.
    Correct.
    How these "returns of value" get back to you and the others is another story.
    One you will no doubt now make up.
    It is not returned directly to you or any other joint heir.
    "Not returned directly"? I don't know how it could be returned any more directly. Certainly the value taken is returned, in the form of the universal individual exemption. This restoration of the individual right to liberty, enabling all to use enough good land to live on for free, is a very direct return of the value taken by those who exclude others from more good land than their own share. It is indeed more direct than a cash payment, as there is no intermediate transfer of value through the state's hands.
    The community is acting as a corporation, which may or may not pay any dividends, and which may or may not owe you, an equal shareholder, anything at all.
    You are not a shareholder in the community, as the community cannot be owned and is therefore not a corporation.
    You, me, and everyone else, who are tantamount to idiots and wards of the state,
    Steven speaks only for his own likely condition should he be relieved of his unjust privileges.
    cannot receive a return of stolen value directly. This "return of value", in the form of land rents collected, is to the [e]state itself only, not to you, which state will then decide what to do that is in the best interests of the estate. This is why it is a form of fascism, or statist capitalism, with the full assumption that whatever serves the best interests of the estate is also in the best interests of the wards, or "joint heirs" thereof.
    That is why if the state is not democratic, it functions effectively as a private landowner like Saudi Arabia, which is the Saud family's private estate.
    In other words, whatever the state collects and uses, even if all the majority of that revenue was used to provide more infrastructure to the center of the community, is all counted as full remuneration to you.
    As your exemption gives you free access to it. Right.
    That is where the Catch-22 comes full circle, because the strength and quality of your "equal right of access and usage" claim, as a ward of the trustees who exercise full control of the rules of the estate, fully depends on your proximity to the center of that estate/community.
    No, it does not. The farther out you are, the more land you can use for free.
    In other words, you have to be in a community to have any claim, but proximity to the center once you are in the community boundaries is only available to those who can promise to pay more.
    Lie refuted above. There is merely a trade-off between proximity to the center and the amount of land you can use for free.
    Those who are in the center: pay the most, and have the greatest claim. The further you get from the center, the less you pay, and the less claim you have.

    Oh, and when a community provides infrastructure, so that you can have an easier commute from the outskirts to the center - that somehow counts as better "access" to the center. Not exclusive usage. Just "access".
    "Somehow" meaning, "in fact."
    You have a pioneering spirit, and recognize that there is PLENTY of land available on the Earth, for which you, a proper and devout believer in Georgist/Geoist principles, have an equal right of access to - one that extends to use of ALL other lands, most of which is unused. Just go completely out of that community, you think, and into between-community lands that no community uses. From there you may not even have to compete with those in other communities. But you might be able, given enough time. Why, you can establish a community of your own.

    No. You cannot do that.
    Yes. You can. Stop telling stupid lies.
    That forbidden fruit is the rank hypocrisy of Georgist ideology's Garden of Eden Collectives, as you will not be permitted to use, and you will have no claim on, between-community lands.
    That is a lie. You are perfectly at liberty to use them. Just not to OWN them.
    Too many of your fellow Georgist ideologues have erroneously concluded that community precedes all else; not just as a matter of possibility, but by legislative decree. Thus, you may not live without proximity to an already existing, established community.
    That is another stupid lie, Steven. Why are you telling so many stupid lies?

    Oh, wait a minute, that's right: you have no choice.
    Not because you are unable, or physically incapable, but because the state will not permit it.
    You are lying, Steven. LYING.
    Communities are FIAT.
    That is a LIE.
    Like legal tender, it is not a question of whether you will belong to an existing community, but only which community you will belong to at any given time.
    You are free to not belong to a community. You just aren't free to violate the rights of those who do.

  27. #1523
    Roy, you stink. Seriously, this is the eve of our Victory, and you're going to come in here spouting your junk like nothing even happened? At least congratulate us on a great showing for the cause of Liberty and for Ron Paul.

    Also, in case you didn't know, your posts are completely worthless. You just spew. And then you spew. And then you spew some more. You are the worst emissary LVT has ever had. Any cause you even remotely support any healthy, happy person would seriously question and rethink whether they wanted to be part of, just because someone like you is associated with it.

    You really need to get your life in order, get some happiness, focus on things in your own life that you have control over, set goals and achieve them, etc. This mania for LVT is really dragging you down. I'm telling you, it's not my and Steven's overwhelming evil that's making you physically ill to read our posts. You're doing that to yourself.

    Just think about it.

  28. #1524
    You know what's funny, Helmuth? If Roy was in charge of LVT implementation, I really do believe that he really would give access to ALL lands, including go-jillions of acres of currently restricted BLM lands. I believe that completely.

    I have lived in "communist/socialist" China, and know that I could survive just fine under most political regimes - even those to which I am most vehemently opposed as a matter of principle. And if Roy was king, and his plan was enacted by royal edict, I would be fine with it. I think I would do quite well, in fact. I would still oppose it as a matter of principle, but it would be fun to watch as the fantasy collides with reality - best laid plans and all that.

    But Roy would not, and never will, be king. What Roy refuses (fails?) to see is that his particular plan will not be adopted by anyone, and would not be implemented or administered by Roy. It would not be according to Roy's special sets of rules, principles, and governing assumptions. I've seen what a lot of the others favoring or implementing LVT are doing, and it none of it quite matches what Roy is advancing. Whatever Roy thinks is the perfect formula or rule for LVT would have very little to do with anything at all, as Roy would not determine rent value assessment formulae, he would not be in charge of zoning, or determining which lands were available for public usage.

    Roy really does believe that an exemption would give each individual enough good, free land to live on - that this wouldn't be tampered with by anyone, such that an exemption reduced everyone to a postage stamp of available dirt, so that everyone would end up having to pay a whopper of a difference in LVT anyway. I take Roy's word at that. Roy's word. Only. Only if Roy was king, and only for as long as Roy was alive. I would actually trust Roy with an LVT. But I wouldn't trust anyone else.

    Roy really believes that the LVT, as a "single tax" solution, would somehow satisfy government (all government at all levels, no less), and that the reality of any other taxes would not creep in and take over as additional revenue streams and layers of additional taxes, and taxes on taxes, after the fact. You know, like they already did, and do now.

    Roy believes in how he would implement LVT so much that he imputes his own altruism to the state. Which makes me think, "SERIOUSLY, ROY?" What did the state ever do to earn that kind of "meeza lubs and twusts gubmint!" devotion?

    To know how our particular state would treat any plan (including our own Constitution, for that matter) in terms of a likelihood that the plan would be distorted, warped, abused, debased, corrupted, ignored, abridged, usurped, etc., we need only look at our present, and our own history. Roy doesn't seem to think it's an issue.

    I see LVT as accomplishing only ONE thing - the abolishment of landownership. That's all. More power to the state, and an additional revenue stream to boot, for a state that has already proved its own corruption time and again, such that it cannot be trusted with the simplest of tasks.

    Yep. Meeza hates dis gubmint. Meeza lubs da gubmint methinks it can and should be. Just like Roy does his own version, which I don't believe even can exist, except in Roy's mind. Of course, the reality is that both versions may be pipe dreams. But as long as I can dream, and have to relate it to the real world, I'll go with my version. Not Roy's.

  29. #1525
    Right. You have to look at the realisticness of your plan being able to be implemented. This is part of economics (a part that Roy ignores). You have to look at incentives. You have to think about individuals, put yourself in their shoes, think about "if I were politician X, how could I really make an ungodly amount of money? By being an incorruptible agent of LVT purity, administering the system without favoritism in a way that I misguidedly believe will help the people? Or maybe... not?" The Public Choice school of economics focuses on these issues. I do not think Roy has ever read their books and studied their ideas.

    Luckily, he easily can, and with the greatest of ease, thanks to the generosity of libertarian institutions and this wonderful libertarian tool we have called the internet:

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Buchanan/buchCv3.html

    Or:

    http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Conse.../dp/0472061003

  30. #1526
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Roy, you stink. Seriously, this is the eve of our Victory,
    And you accuse ME of being unrealistic?? ROTFL!! I have said before that I consider it impossible for Ron Paul to become the Republican nominee for president. The system is simply too thoroughly corrupted by money, greed and privilege.
    and you're going to come in here spouting your junk like nothing even happened?
    I'm just refuting fallacious, absurd and dishonest claims.
    At least congratulate us on a great showing for the cause of Liberty and for Ron Paul.
    Congratulations! But I still think Ron Paul's solid second-place finishes in Iowa and NH are more of an intellectual and moral victory for liberty than a harbinger of genuine political victory.
    Also, in case you didn't know, your posts are completely worthless.
    Others, who unlike you are honest and willing to know facts, disagree with you.
    You just spew. And then you spew. And then you spew some more.
    You know that is a lie. I refute, and then refute, and then refute some more.
    You are the worst emissary LVT has ever had. Any cause you even remotely support any healthy, happy person would seriously question and rethink whether they wanted to be part of, just because someone like you is associated with it.
    I am aware that anger is not an attractive emotion, but IMO it is the only appropriate human response to two Holocausts a year, year after decade after century after millennium. Maybe you can watch the boot stamping on the face of humanity, forever, and think to yourself, "Just as long as I could be the one wearing the boot...." (even though it is in fact your face and the faces of your loved ones that are getting stomped). I can't do that.
    You really need to get your life in order, get some happiness, focus on things in your own life that you have control over, set goals and achieve them, etc.
    I've done all those things. How would your advice differ from the advice given to those who opposed slavery or Naziism with the appropriate level of passion?
    This mania for LVT is really dragging you down. I'm telling you, it's not my and Steven's overwhelming evil that's making you physically ill to read our posts. You're doing that to yourself.
    No. I am aware that my inability to just accept the greatest evil in the history of the world and get on with my life is a handicap. But I am not the author of that evil, and my response to it is not something I am doing to myself. Could the abolitionists, or those who opposed the Nazis, just ignore the evil they saw and get on with their lives? Not if they were anything like me, they couldn't.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScHhuIY4Pwo

  31. #1527
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    And you accuse ME of being unrealistic?? ROTFL!! I have said before that I consider it impossible for Ron Paul to become the Republican nominee for president. The system is simply too thoroughly corrupted by money, greed and privilege.
    Uhh... who cares?

    Congratulations!
    Thank you. There, see, if you were sincere and believable there, you would have gained some pathos points with this.

    But I still think Ron Paul's solid second-place finishes in Iowa and NH are more of an intellectual and moral victory for liberty than a harbinger of genuine political victory.
    What kind of victory did you think I was talking about? Of course it was an intellectual victory. This is a long-term movement. We all understand that. Were in this for the long haul. "It’s not like I’m just trying to win and get elected. I’m trying to change the course of history." -- Ron Paul



    Anyway, my advice is good. Those passionately opposing the Nazis were not all unhappy people. We don't have a moral obligation to be long-suffering and self-tortured. You can be just as passionate and be optimistic. I know I am. I am really passionate about my Rothbardianism and my opposition to the horrible people and horrible actions and horrible ideas of the State. But I'm very optimistic and very happy, because that's not all there is to my life, and also because my ideas will work and are catching on. I'm winning.

    So I guess I can understand your despair. Your ideas are not catching on. You are not winning. Georgism is a dead and disappearing philosophy promoted by 15 die-hards on the Internet, all of whom are probably over 50. That would be frustrating. I feel your pain.

    Maybe that's a sign, though, that you should find a different philosophy. One that could actually work! One that's vibrant and brilliant and right! That would be: the Mises-Rothbard-Rockwell-Paul wing of intelligent, no-compromise Libertarianism.

  32. #1528
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    What Roy refuses (fails?) to see is that his particular plan will not be adopted by anyone, and would not be implemented or administered by Roy.
    I've never been able to understand how anyone could imagine that is an objection of any interest. It's like I'm explaining the principles of a healthy diet to you, and you're saying, "Nobody is going to follow your diet plan exactly, Roy. They are going to eat birthday cake on their birthdays, even though you think cake is not very healthy. So much for your diet plan. You just refuse to see that it is other people who are choosing the food they eat, not you." I am unable rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could prompt such comments.
    It would not be according to Roy's special sets of rules, principles, and governing assumptions. I've seen what a lot of the others favoring or implementing LVT are doing, and it none of it quite matches what Roy is advancing.
    So? There are lots of diets out there, too. There is lots of disagreement about details. But every competent dietician and nutritionist knows there are certain principles underlying all healthful diets.
    Whatever Roy thinks is the perfect formula or rule for LVT would have very little to do with anything at all, as Roy would not determine rent value assessment formulae, he would not be in charge of zoning, or determining which lands were available for public usage.
    I would not be choosing the food other people eat, either. That doesn't mean nothing I could say about diet has any validity.
    Roy really does believe that an exemption would give each individual enough good, free land to live on - that this wouldn't be tampered with by anyone, such that an exemption reduced everyone to a postage stamp of available dirt, so that everyone would end up having to pay a whopper of a difference in LVT anyway. I take Roy's word at that. Roy's word. Only. Only if Roy was king, and only for as long as Roy was alive. I would actually trust Roy with an LVT. But I wouldn't trust anyone else.
    I am only saying what would happen if certain reforms were enacted. I have never claimed to be predicting what WILL happen -- other than my prediction, which has always come true and always will come true, that all apologists for landowner privilege inevitably lie.
    Roy really believes that the LVT, as a "single tax" solution, would somehow satisfy government (all government at all levels, no less), and that the reality of any other taxes would not creep in and take over as additional revenue streams and layers of additional taxes, and taxes on taxes, after the fact. You know, like they already did, and do now.
    They already did and do now because they have to fund the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners.
    Roy believes in how he would implement LVT so much that he imputes his own altruism to the state.
    I am not an altruist, and unlike you I don't anthropomorphize or impute motives to the state.
    Which makes me think, "SERIOUSLY, ROY?" What did the state ever do to earn that kind of "meeza lubs and twusts gubmint!" devotion?
    While the state made Swaziland much like Somalia, it also made Switzerland and many other countries not like Somalia. The fact that many foods are unhealthy is not a good reason to stop eating altogether.
    To know how our particular state would treat any plan (including our own Constitution, for that matter) in terms of a likelihood that the plan would be distorted, warped, abused, debased, corrupted, ignored, abridged, usurped, etc., we need only look at our present, and our own history. Roy doesn't seem to think it's an issue.
    No, I just understand, as you do not, how landowner privilege is at the root of many of the problems you have with the state.
    I see LVT as accomplishing only ONE thing - the abolishment of landownership. That's all. More power to the state, and an additional revenue stream to boot, for a state that has already proved its own corruption time and again, such that it cannot be trusted with the simplest of tasks.
    It cannot be trusted WHEN ITS TASK IS TO SERVE LANDOWNERS.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #1529
    Forgive me if this has been addressed, or is too philosophical of a tangent. I haven't taken the time to read all 1528 posts of this thread. If it this idea has been addressed, please direct me to that point in the discussion, as I'd like to see others' thoughts.

    In what I have read, there seem to me to be an omission that is fundamental to a free society. Doesn't the Natural Law that endows us all with the very rights at the heart of this discussion, imply a Creator granted us such rights?

    If, accepting this as the basis for Natural Law, the law that endows all with their life, liberty and property, is the foundation for a free society. Anything that violates this is a violation of that most basic of all truths. If we accept this, then it seems clear to me any form of property taxation is a violation. This discussion about how much violation is acceptable in what would then be an almost free society seems irrelevant as there is no such thing, either you are free or you are not.

    Yet, we must discuss it. It seems to me the basis of concern stems from this: that a truly free society then means that naturally a man is indeed with in his Rights to deny others the use of or any portion of that which is his, whether it is his property, or his labor. And this indeed means that there is the possibility that some shipwrecked penniless man would be at the utter disposal of the man who owns that on which the other is shipwrecked.(I'll omit the debate on what constitutes ownership out, as I don't believe it has bearing either way on my point)

    It may be naturally within man to hoard what is his. And it seems to me that much of the discussion here assumes that man is basically evil. I disagree. I think Men are basically good.

    This is the natural law that isn't addressed. The creator that made man, also created within him a natural inclination to care about fellow man. This is basic. The desire to continue the human species, man must interact with others in order to achieve this. This is also complex. As man is more than animal, and has a soul and a connection to other men. This is nature. This is essential to liberty.

    There will be those men that do bad, and men are inclined to corruption, and evil. But men are also good and most will help others when perceived to be needed. This often is so strong, that people ironically become tyrannical, in their efforts to do good. This drives many people to do what they do. Most people who support socialism, support it out of the desire to do good. People want to help their fellow man. Free people want to promote freedom, thus the cycle of freedom and despotism ensues. Man cares about other men so much, that he becomes tyrannical in making everyone "free". Those wholly evil know this basic law of nature and use it to their advantage. How does any massive societal change ever occur if not under the guise of doing good?

    Our grand experiment in Liberty is proof of this, as our Country seems to have the most generous people. But this is not because of some disproportionate sprinkling of generosity. Perhaps this is because when men are guaranteed the protections of their freedom, and when men are free(or believe themselves to be), they will freely help others as well, and will perpetuate freedom. When men are slaves, they will still help others, but is it not more difficult to do so? Therefore the best form which will help the most people, is it not one of freedom?

    Is it the concern that people will suffer, if everyone is indeed allowed to exercise complete freedom? Is the implication of a safeguard to address the concern, one that always leads to despotism? To somehow ensure that all men do good, must we violate the rights of all men?

  35. #1530
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    [The state] cannot be trusted WHEN ITS TASK IS TO SERVE LANDOWNERS.
    ...or the highest bidding landholders it would serve under LVT.

    States are not to be trusted, period. You don't judge them on their stated intents, but only by the broadest reaches of power conceivable, which it will always seek to extend outward from its necessarily limited purposes. States are like wild, power-hungry, disobedient animals by default. You don't unleash or uncage them for any reason. Ever. They can be anthropomorphized because they are the products of men and their wants, needs and desires. They prefer self-growth and will resist shrinkage at all costs, the genie that never goes willingly back into its bottle. They are The Little Shop of Horrors, every one of them, at their core - Feed me, Seymour. They will eat you. They will enslave you. They will seek to trade places with you, seeing you put into their tiny, powerless bottle. For your safety and well being, naturally.
    That's the history of most states, including ours.

Page 51 of 68 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... 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
  •