What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Roy L]

We have a winner! Sold! Freedom goes for the price of 0% institutionalized theft.

<sigh> It is landowning and the landowner's privilege of pocketing all the value government spending creates -- i.e., lack of LVT -- that constitute institutionalized theft, and that make the additional institutionalized thefts of income tax, sales tax, profits tax, gas tax, excise tax, etc. -- all the taxes that burden production rather than idle, parasitic rent seeking -- necessary to avoid becoming Somalia. As I have proved to you dozens of times.

It is all so simple, if you can only find a willingness to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality: the evils you blame on government per se are in fact almost all caused by landowning and the taxpayer-funded welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners (which is also the principal cause of government corruption).

Government spending on services and infrastructure is the goose that lays the golden eggs. You see the hard-working sharecroppers are made to feed the goose, and your solution is to kill it. You just refuse to know the fact that the goose is laying golden eggs, and this renders you incapable of knowing the fact that those eggs are being taken by the landowner who contributes nothing to the farm or the goose's maintenance, rather than being collected to pay for its fodder. We can free the sharecroppers of their burden and still get the benefit of the golden eggs if we will only collect them to pay for the goose fodder rather than letting the landowner take them in return for nothing.

[helmuth_hubener]

<sigh> It is the nation-state and the nation-state's privilege of pocketing the all the value they choose -- i.e., taxation, seizure, and other thefts -- that constitutes institutionalized theft, and that makes LVT possible. If you think LVT is so great, you should move to Somalia. Somalia proves how well LVT works. How's that Somalia working for ya, LVT advocates?

It is all so simple, if you can only find a willingness to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality: the evils you blame on landowners per se are in fact almost all caused by the tremendous monstrosity and criminality which you love and excuse and which goes by the name of the nation-state (which is inherently immoral and immune to market forces and thus inevitably thoroughly corrupt).

Low-time-preference savers are the geese that lay the golden eggs, making investment in services and infrastructure possible. You see the hard-working landowners (and other businessmen) feeding the consumer, meeting customer preferences, and your solution is to kill them. You just refuse to know the fact that the goose is laying golden eggs, and this renders you incapable of knowing the fact that those eggs are being taken by the nation-state who contributes nothing to the farm or the goose's maintenance, rather than being collected to pay for its fodder. We can free the savers of their burden and get even more, far more, golden eggs if we will only allow people to relate to each other on a voluntary basis, rather than allow a mythology to continue wherein one group or people robs everyone else and the Great God Demos makes it all holy and legitimate.

[Steven Douglas]

Low-time-preference savers are the geese that lay the golden eggs, making investment in services and infrastructure possible. You see the hard-working landowners (and other businessmen) feeding the consumer, meeting customer preferences, and your solution is to kill them. You just refuse to know the fact that the goose is laying golden eggs, and this renders you incapable of knowing the fact that those eggs are being taken by the nation-state who contributes nothing to the farm or the goose's maintenance, rather than being collected to pay for its fodder. We can free the savers of their burden and get even more, far more, golden eggs if we will only allow people to relate to each other on a voluntary basis, rather than allow a mythology to continue wherein one group or people robs everyone else and the Great God Demos makes it all holy and legitimate.

Come on, helmuth, under LVT, the golden egg layers are only returning value that was "provided" partly by you and I, and solely by virtue of our existence in a Community of Individuals. Each of us are part and parcel to the holy (and wholly incorporated) trinity of land value provided by Government, Nature and Community. That makes us quasi-stockholders with a stake in whatever land happens to be in the community we are in, since we are included in the "community" part of the "land value provider" equation. If we are going to give up what we would otherwise have been at liberty to use (wherever we happen to live, if nobody else existed), we should fully expect - and are fully entitled to, you know, a little sump'n sump'n in return for the deprivations we suffer at the hands of exclusive landholders - those otherwise parasites on the land, the usage of which we also have a perpetual claim on.

See, the LVT people explained it to me, and I can see the bottom line for me: Everyone has to pay rent in perpetuity for any land they exclusively use, in exchange for the liberty deprivations they caused to everyone else. If we grant the government the power to subject others to perpetual involuntary servitude, we will get a free pass as individuals. We will get an exemption (perhaps even a dividend), worth a certain, uniform amount, based on all the deprivations we have suffered! Uniformly, of course.

The only problem I have, though, is that I am not willing to sell my soul (that is, my unalienable right to liberty to all that I would otherwise have been at liberty to non-exclusively use) in exchange for a government exemption. My natural liberty rights are not for sale for mess of LVT pottage. If this is truly the unalienable birthright of each individual, then it cannot be collectivized on anyone's behalf without their individual consent. When it comes to a deprivation of my natural liberty rights to non-exclusive use of lands, no compensation can be considered just.

Nobody should be granted exclusive use of any land over which I have a natural liberty claim to non-exclusive use. Ever. That is an unconscionable violation of all my natural liberty rights, which "meeza lubs gubmint" must protect - and not pimp out or rent out on my behalf. That is presumptuous, and a theft if it is without my individual consent.

An exemption makes everywhere I live akin to some kind of floating reservation. Screw that. If there is gold in them thar hills, or in a mine, I DEMAND non-exclusive access to that gold. If there is a beautiful view of the ocean in a mansion on a cliff, no exemption can compensate for that. I want non-exclusive access, which I am willing to share with everyone, to that land with the view. NO EXEMPTION can compensate me for this kind of deprivation, because that deprivation will not enable me to have non-exclusive use of equivalent lands. I see how that worked for the aboriginal Americans and displaced hunter-gatherers everywhere, who were always goodly and willing to share, but were displaced to worse lands every time. I don't want to live as a parasite on the land, robbing others of their natural liberty rights, while pretending that it is OK, so long as I "justly" compensate them (through the government that pimps out those rights).

No, no LVT for me. As a proper and pure geolibertarian, allowing for exclusive use of lands is like shaking hands with the devil. There is nobody who can sell or rent my liberty birthright to non-exclusive use of ALL LANDS in my community, because my natural liberty rights are UNALIENABLE, and UN-OWNABLE, and therefore UNCONTROLLABLE - by anyone but me. A deprivation does not cease to be a deprivation because someone shelled out compensate. The original deprivation - of all the advantages, which are the most important part - still exists.

How dare you presume to rent out my INDIVIDUAL natural liberty birthright to all the highest bidding golden egg stealing land parasites, Roy. That makes you an accomplice, and very much aligned with thieves, because for you it's not a question of whether exclusive use of land will be tolerated, decriminalized, as natural liberty deprivations are allowed, but only which collective band of merry thieves is going to be allowed to accomplish this for a collective price.

That's pure evil, Roy. Count me out of your band of merry accomplices to all those bands of merry thieves. I am still displaced, I still have no NON-EXCLUSIVE access to the golden eggs and other advantages that nature provides from use of better lands - so the natural liberty deprivation still exists, WITH OR WITHOUT COMPENSATION - which ROBS ME of all the advantages that would otherwise be free - to me as an individual - provided that my access and usage is non-exclusive. My natural liberty rights are not for sale, Roy - not even by a tyrannous majority of prior mountain pass thieves-turned-government - who have no right to deprive me of all the advantages that Government, Nature and Community provides FREELY for anyone who makes non-exclusive use of lands -- which I am fully willing to share.

Oh, and screw the individual exemption, too. I don't want exclusive access to lands, as that is asking me to indulge in evil, to get my hands dirty as I slop from the exclusive-use parasite trough. No pot-kettle hypocrisy here, and no deprivation of other people's natural liberty birthrights is desired or tolerated. No quarter asked for, none given. I want non-exclusive access to the gold mine/cliff on the hill overlooking the ocean. Tell me an individual exemption can compensate me for the equivalent of that. Impossible. Exclusive access to a mine means that I as an individual am deprived of FREE access to that same ore, which is much more valuable to me than any exemption.

You didn't solve the liberty deprivations problem (of FREE NON-EXCLUSIVE ACCESS) with LVT, Roy. You exacerbated and multiplied it, closing the door on all such FREE access, making it all but impossible - available by exclusive access only.

[Roy L]

What a completely absurd non-sequitur.

No, you just need to evade what you said.

That is like saying that car owners have no right to be secure in their ownership of a car, because if they were, car rental companies would have no right to repossess their cars from renters. The absurdity is in conflating car owners with car renters, as if they were in the same class, with the same applicable rules. They are not.

<yawn> Steven, I already informed you that when you said, "secure in her location," you actually meant, "secure in her privilege of depriving others of their rights to liberty by owning land." You only said, "secure in her location" in order to pretend you weren't fallaciously begging the question by assuming she had a right to deprive others of their rights to liberty by owning land.

I am speaking, of course, of what I believe (as a normative), ought to be the rights of landowner/occupiers, not renters. I am referring specifically to those who have nothing to do with paying out or receiving rents, to or from anyone.

The rent of land is the economic advantage -- provided by government, the community and nature -- obtainable by using it. The landowner/occupier inherently gets access to that advantage, and deprives everyone else of it.

You know that, Roy. Of course you do.

I can only respond to what you SAY, and I can't help it if your beliefs are so irrational, indefensible and repugnant that you have to avoid stating them clearly.

We are both speaking in normative terms, Roy - what each of us wants, and believes "ought" to be recognized and enforced by the state as rights that are protected under the law - whatever they might be in our minds, and regardless of our reasoning.

If you had actually engaged in any reasoning, that is....

The difference is that my normative views are supported by fact and logic and total commitment to liberty, justice and truth, as described in my exchanges with Buddha and hb, while yours are not supported by anything but your desire for unearned wealth.

I do not believe that "...those who own their locations HAVE a right to be secure in them." Rather I believe that they OUGHT to have such right - which is not yet fully recognized by the law, and which does not yet fully exist, any more than your "otherwise at liberty" or other "rights" you believe OUGHT to be recognized under an LVT regime.

Nope. The liberty people would have if landowners did not remove it is a physical fact.

Don't lump me in as someone who has your "self-evident and indisputable" gibberish mindset with regard to rights.

The FACT of liberty is self-evident and indisputable. The RIGHT to liberty is unfortunately subtle and controversial.

I personally believe in the concept of unalienable rights, but I also fully recognize that these a moral beliefs on my part - forever normative, with no empirical basis for any of of it.

I have described the empirical basis of moral law in my exchange with Buddha and hb.

I do not buy into the nonsense, as regards rights, of anything being "self-evident" or "indisputable". It is really no different from my belief in a creator. I have beliefs in this regard, but I am not so stupid as to ignore the fact there is no empirical evidence of such a thing that everyone would accept. In the case of so-called "unalienable rights" I fully recognize that this is not universal, not testable and not falsifiable; nor will there ever be unanimous agreement among humans on what those so-called rights are.

There isn't unanimous agreement that the earth is round, either. That doesn't mean that fact is disputable.

We can identify capacities, capabilities, and even individual wills as being self-evident, but to conflate these "rights", as if they were also self-evident or indisputable would be a GROSS error on my part. Such "rights", as subjective normatives, will differ for everyone.

Addressed elsewhere.

You also make multiple mind-numbingly erroneous references to "rights" which are not currently acknowledged, and do not exist as a matter of law, as if they were already actualized. Such "rights" are established firmly in your mind - the only thing remaining is for others "recognize" them, now that you you have recognized them to the point of making unilateral pronouncements that they are somehow "self-evident" and "indisputable". Likewise, you take actual rights (e.g., landowner rights), which now are acknowledged, and DO exist, to the extent that they are, and refer to them as "privileges", as if that had also already been established, separate and quite apart from your own strange mind.

Please reread the above paragraph as if it had been written 200 years ago, substituting "slave owner" for "landowner," and note that the "logic" is precisely identical.

Your "...because that is the only kind of security of location that supports the privilege of landowners to take from society and contribute nothing in return..." is your personal gibberish, and a straw man that argues from its own premises.

It is not a strawman. It is the actual content of your belief system.

The reasons why I believe there "ought" to be a right is quite different. It is also debatable, of course, but wholly irrelevant to the "fact" that I believe such a right ought to exist. Likewise your reasons, equally normative, as to why there ought NOT to be a right of landownership, are debatable, but irrelevant to the "fact" that you believe such a thing should not exist as a right.

I have identified the facts of objective reality that prove it can't be a right.

Idiot, you believe that all have "otherwise at liberty rights" which are equal, even though you have agreed repeatedly that it is impossible to separate individual deprivations or contributions, which you fully acknowledge are not equal, and are never the same for each individual.

Deprivations and contributions are not the right to liberty that is at issue. Compare the right to freedom of speech, which is the same for everyone even though some make more use of it than others, and whose abrogation would be felt more by some than others.

The "flat universal exemption" is also flat-out refusal to acknowledge or account for superior and inferior "otherwise deprivations" or individual contributions to land value.

No, it simply recognizes that human rights are equal for all, and their removal merits equal compensation for all. Indeed, your claim is proved flat wrong by the fact that the exemption is not an equal benefit for all, as those who do not wish to use -- i.e., are not being deprived of -- the full exempt amount of land value do not receive the full benefit.

That is prima facie proof that rights, as you perceive them, are made both nebulous and collectivized.

No, that is just a non sequitur fallacy on your part.

Again, you lie - and this time with a disgusting and slippery semantics play

Such claims are despicably dishonest. You know that I neither lied nor engaged in any "semantics play."

, as "walk away" (from a deal, 'walk' being a metaphor for "refusing to negotiate or deal any further") is different than "walk away" (from a parcel of land). On the one side, the buyer is free to walk away, both from the deal and from the land. On the other side, the leaseholder under an LVT regime would be forced into a transaction, unable to "walk away" from that transaction, and forced to "walk away" from the land if s/he is unable to compete with a superior offer from a competitor.

That is inherent in market competition for a resource in fixed supply. You just want landowners to enjoy a privileged position, so they don't have to compete in the market. To justify this, you have to delete from objective reality the fact that the landholder forcibly stops everyone else from using the land: by not walking away, he continues to initiate force to impose his desires on everyone else who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land. So contrary to your claims, he is only "walking away" if he leaves others free to use the land. As long as he insists on forcibly excluding them, HE is the one forcibly imposing a transaction on THEM: the unrequited abrogation of their rights to liberty.

So your "Both sides are free to walk away" is incorrect in the absolute - unless me throwing your ass out, from my house onto the street, means that you are now "free" to be on the street.

Just as the landowner leaves everyone else "free" to use other land -- except that all the other useful land is also owned, by other landowners.

Geolibertarian gibberish - arguing from the premise,

Lie. I simply identified the relevant facts of objective physical reality, facts that you have to refuse to know, because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.

and lying to yourself at the same time,

Infinitely evil and despicable filth.

given that you want the market "rigged" to favor the state,

No, Steven, that is just a stupid lie. A free market where those who create value get the value they create is not rigged. No. Rather, it is indisputably the current market, which enables landowners to take value they did not create, that is self-evidently rigged.

and whomever it favors as a result - using geolibertarian gibberish as your rationale.

You continue to prove that you have no facts, logic or arguments to offer.

Argument from your own gibberish premise.

Fact based on self-evident and indisputable fact.

Your system would complete the blood-sucking parasite trifecta, with a unholy Trinity of banksters, land developers and the state - all in collusion.

No, such claims are not only indisputably false, but invariably unsupported, stupid and dishonest.

Under LVT, banks would have greatly reduced business and profits without land value to lend for and against (the resulting lack of debt issuance would likely require monetary reform, but that's another thread). Likewise, land developers would no longer be able to appropriate publicly created land value, and would only be able to make money by providing value for money through efficient construction of desired improvements. And the state's only financial incentive would be to make productive use of the land as advantageous as possible -- and that is virtually a definition of good government.

Lie.

Disgraceful. You know I have told the truth.

LVT does not "remove" land value entirely.

It removes the welfare subsidy giveaway to the landowner, so the only residual value is pre-paid rent (and perhaps in rare cases, a small amount of speculative value if a prospective user thinks the rent will increase too fast for the assessment to keep up).

It merely calls that apportioned part of it "the state's cut" in the monopolistic renter regime you want established.

Garbage. The land market is always inherently monopolistic because supply is fixed, as already proved. And it is indisputably more just for the community to recover the value it creates for public purposes and benefit than to give it away to greedy, idle, privileged, parasitic landowners in return for nothing.

Naive. The last part of your sentence explains one reason why it is in their interests to do just that. MORE DEVELOPMENT. Greater land value.

LOL! Why always prove your ignorance of economics? More development means developers have more competition, and greater land rent (not land value) means higher LVT payments they have to make.

Good for the developer and banksters that thrive on NEW development,

Nope. Disproved above. Developers want less competition (as under the current system, where greedy, privileged parasitic landowners hold developable land off the market waiting for zoning favors), not more, and banksters mainly want to pocket land rent as mortgage interest; LVT stops them from doing so, making life and profitability a lot more difficult for them.

and good for the state, as more developed land means more land rent - can't charge much in the way of land rents on undeveloped land.

Yes, LVT is good for the community and the public, as it recovers the value they create for public purposes and benefit, and encourages the most productive and appropriate use of each land parcel, making economic growth zoom.

"Market rent" for what, Roy?

The land.

If I have a 100 story hi-rise for lease, the "market rent" is based, not on what I earn from rental of that hotel's improvements (mine to keep, remember?) - but only on what another is willing to pay overall (land rent + improvements) to get me off that property.

Nope. It's what people are willing to pay for use of the unimproved site.

If I am already at the apex, and politically connected, I can get the value of my improvements jacked up to where it is not economically feasible for anyone to compete - get your own hotel.

But that is of course exactly how people DO compete with the owner of improvements.

As a developer, you can push someone else off their land, and are free to build.

It's not "their" land, and yes, the movement of resources into more productive hands is a BENEFIT of the free market. You just hate freedom because freedom doesn't steal wealth from the productive to give it to landowners in return for nothing. Hating freedom because it doesn't steal from the good and give to the evil is evil, Steven. Evil.

"the land tax authority would only reimburse" -- Complete gibberish.

No, it is perfectly clear. You are just lying about what I have plainly written, as usual. Stop lying.

There is no "land tax authority" in place, nor have its rules been written, or any probability that can be pointed to that it would happen this way.

So? Evil, despicable, lying filth said the same sorts of things to America's Founding Fathers when they first proposed a new form of government. The despicable, evil dishonesty of the evil, lying filth who serve greed, privilege, injustice, parasitism and evil is much the same throughout history. It is always despicable. It is always dishonest. It is always filth. It is always evil. Always.

You are speculating, no differently than I am.

No, I am proposing a far better way of ordering society, government and the economy, and I have explained how and why it would work. You, by conspicuous contrast, lacking any actual facts, logic or arguments to offer, have instead opted for the least honest, least plausible, least logical and most risible "argument" possible: that the defect in the proposed system is that another system is currently in place, and still a third would be implemented, rather than the proposed one.

A rose by any other name - I don't give a shit what you call land, or an improvement.

Thank you for agreeing that you deliberately chose to lie, exactly as if you were an evil, lying sack of $#+.

Oh, wait a minute, that's right...

The net effect is occupancy of "space" for rent.

No, it is not. Built space is entirely different from land. You know this. Of course you do. You have merely decided deliberately to lie about it, exactly as you would if you were an evil, lying sack of $#!+.

Oh, wait a minute, that's right...

And if most of the occupy-able "space" is all above land, on my "improvements only", regardless what you call it, what do I as a landholder care?

<sigh> The value of the built space YOU PROVIDE would not be taxed. The value of the economic advantage government, the community and nature provide at that location and of which you forcibly deprive others, by contrast, WOULD be taxed. So as a landholder you can only make any money to the extent that you are CONTRIBUTING something, and can't make any money just by STEALING from everyone else, as the landholder qua landholder does.

What you charge others for the built space YOU PROVIDE, you get to keep.

What you charge others for the economic advantage that government, the community and nature provide at that location, you do NOT get to keep.

Is that difference not something that you, as a landholder, would care about?

I'm not sure how many more times, and in how many more different ways, I will have to explain these facts to you before you will find a willingness to know them.

The net effect is the same.

That is either a stupid lie, or a confession of abject stupidity. Probably both.

I don't need "land" to be a rent-seeking whatever-you-want-to-call-it.

Yes, in fact, you do. That is fundamental.

I can create my own "non-land", and since the vast majority of Space For Rent would be "non-land", the net effect is the same.

No, that's just you telling more stupid, evil lies. The net effect is totally different: if you just charge for the land, society is no better off, so you are not better off; by contrast, if you charge for built space, you have made society better off by constructing that built space, so you are better off.

See above - label it however you want, as if that makes any difference.

The difference is between earning money by contributing and not earning any money because you are not contributing.

Wrong.

I am of course objectively correct, and you are of course objectively lying.

A "universal individual exemption" under your regime is not based on quantity and quality of land, but land rent value only - as a fixed price.

No, it is based on median land value used, or some similar statistical measure of how much land value is needed for a normal person to survive on.

It is conceivable, as overall land values go up, that such an exemption would not cover 100% of ANY habitable space, but only a portion thereof.

True. It is also conceivable that werewolves and vampires with super-powers would battle ninjas and pirates over the habitable space, preventing market price allocation. And about as likely.

The uniform, universal individual land tax exemption is designed and calculated to provide free, secure tenure on enough good land for a normal person to live on. Your "argument" therefore again, as usual, amounts to a claim that the proposed system is faulty because some other system would be implemented instead. The fallaciousness, irrationality and stupidity of such "arguments" are all very close to being infinite.

The Income Tax was only supposed to be a 1% tax on the very wealthy, and ONLY on the interest they earned. From there its tentacles expanded out to the monstrosity it is today.

Yes, because it was designed to prevent LVT from gaining more popular support while actually aggravating landowner privilege.

But somehow you believe that this is not possible under an LVT, and to argue otherwise is nothing more than "meeza hatsea gubint" in your mind; that is to say, you don't have an argument for that.

No, the argument is very simple, and it refutes and demolishes you conclusively: what you are objecting to is not LVT but something else, which you are claiming would be implemented in place of LVT. But that "argument" applies to anything. Unless you can show HOW and WHY that particular other system would be implemented instead of LVT, how it is a predictable and inevitable result of even TRYING to implement LVT, then you are just spewing stupid, dishonest nonsense with no basis in fact.

No, not the improvements - only the inflated appraisals that value land and improvements in such a way that is beneficial to your State-Bankster-Developer Holy Trinity.

I'm curious, Stuvid: just what "way" do you erroneously imagine that to be, and how do you imagine appraisals that are publicly available -- along with all the transaction data that goes into them -- can be inflated with no one noticing?

Remember how the market actually works, Roy?

Oh, I do indeed: nothing like that.

Yeah, you want to reverse that, alright, by making it in both the state's, developers' and banksters' interests to drive up land rents, the real costs of which are ever-absorbed by all the vertically free-floating sublessees.

ROTFL!! You poor, deluded ignoramus. You still can't bring yourself to know the truth, can you? That land rent is not a cost but the measure of an ADVANTAGE. The higher land rents are, the bigger the individual exemption and the less leverage banksters and developers have over ordinary people.

Keeps everyone at the top happy; leaseholders are not threatened with hostile takeovers, based on inflated improvement prices -

They wouldn't be in any case. That's just something stupid you made up.

developers and banksters are happy, as they really can look elsewhere for cheaper land to develop on -

<sigh> Developers and banksters can't pocket increases in land value with LVT, so they would have no motive to develop cheap land. They'd just lose money by over-investing in improvements. That is very much the point.

and finally, the state is happy, because yet more land, and therefore future land rents, is being seeded.

Society thrives, grows, prospers. Right. You just have to claim that is somehow bad because when the state's interests are aligned with the people's interests, your "meeza hatesa gubmint" superstitions can't withstand the fact.

They're not trying to buy and sell Roy

And on your planet, that might even be relevant.

- under a Universal Rent Regime, RENT is where all the money is for leaseholders with improvements.

If that meant anything, which it doesn't, it would be an equivocation fallacy. Leaseholders can't pocket ANY economic rent under LVT. All they can get is the payment for the value -- improvements, maintenance, services, etc. -- that THEY PROVIDE, which is not rent in the economic sense.

Yeah, you still haven't explained how all that proven nonsense would be avoided here.

It would not be in government's financial interest, and LVT could not be implemented in the first place if the people were stupid, dishonest and evil enough to sabotage it by such devices.

You know, with actual politicians, and not Roy L., in charge. Give me some examples of all this LVT wonderfulness you're talking about. Show me an instance of LVT attempted implementation that comes closest to what you are proposing.

The closest was in Kiaochow in the years before WW I. It worked spectacularly, even recovering only about half the land rent.

[Roy L]

<sigh> It is the nation-state and the nation-state's privilege of pocketing

First lie. The nation state does not and cannot pocket anything. Crooks, yes. Landowners, yes. Nation states, no.

the all the value they choose

Second lie, as public revenue is constrained by many factors -- unless you want to prove your stupidity and dishonesty by claiming that however much revenue government obtains is "all the value it chooses" to obtain.

-- i.e., taxation, seizure, and other thefts -- that constitutes institutionalized theft, and that makes LVT possible.

Non sequitur fallacy. There is no logical inference whereby other taxes make LVT possible. That is just stupid, dishonest garbage from you, as usual.

If you think LVT is so great, you should move to Somalia. Somalia proves how well LVT works. How's that Somalia working for ya, LVT advocates?

Somalia self-evidently and indisputably does not use LVT, proving that you have merely spewed more stupid lies, as usual. But then, you have no choice, do you? There is nothing else you can do.

It is all so simple, if you can only find a willingness to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality: the evils you blame on landowners per se are in fact almost all caused by the tremendous monstrosity and criminality which you love and excuse and which goes by the name of the nation-state (which is inherently immoral and immune to market forces and thus inevitably thoroughly corrupt).

But in fact, the facts of objective reality prove me right and you wrong. All the people who live well and happily live in nation states, and all the people who don't live in nation states don't live well or happily. In Hong Kong, which has a nation state but no landowners, people live well and happily. In Somalia, which has landowners but no nation state, people do not live well or happily. These facts prove that landowners, not nation states, are the fundamental problem. Your claims cannot possibly be correct, and are in fact the exact, diametric opposite of the truth.

Low-time-preference savers are the geese that lay the golden eggs, making investment in services and infrastructure possible.

No, that's clearly just a lie from you, as they do not invest in services or infrastructure, and are not needed for government to do so.

You see the hard-working landowners

No, I do not. That's indisputably just another stupid, evil lie from you, Helmuth, as the landowner qua landowner is not hardworking, and in fact does no work, and makes no contribution, whatsoever. That is why you demand that he be privileged to steal from everyone else, as a greedy, evil parasite.

(and other businessmen)

No, you are lying again, Helmuth. The landowner is not a businessman, as I already proved to you: his "business" is morally and economically indistinguishable from that of a bandit.

feeding the consumer, meeting customer preferences, and your solution is to kill them.

No, Helmuth, you are a lying sack of $#!+. The landowner does not feed the consumer, you are just lying. The landowner does not meet consumer preferences, you are just lying. All the landowner does is charge the producer, who does feed the consumer and meet consumer preferences, full market value for what government, the community and nature provide. That is why you have not answered, cannot answer, and will never answer The Question:

"How, exactly, is production aided by the landowner's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?"

You just refuse to know the fact that the goose is laying golden eggs, and this renders you incapable of knowing the fact that those eggs are being taken by the nation-state who contributes nothing to the farm or the goose's maintenance, rather than being collected to pay for its fodder.

No, that is just more stupid, "meeza hatesa gubmint" garbage from you that is refuted by objective reality, where absence of a nation state is invariably accompanied by zero (0) golden eggs.

We can free the savers of their burden

Notice how you have to try to change the subject from landowners to "savers"?

and get even more, far more, golden eggs if we will only allow people to relate to each other on a voluntary basis,

When did the landless voluntarily relinquish their rights to liberty in return for no compensation?

rather than allow a mythology to continue wherein one group or people robs everyone else

I.e., landowners.

and the Great God Demos makes it all holy and legitimate.

You either believe people -- the demos -- have rights or you don't. You don't. Simple.

[Steven Douglas]

...the landholder forcibly stops everyone else from using the land: by not walking away, he continues to initiate force to impose his desires on everyone else who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.

[Roy L]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. So that comes to what, about 85 lies?

[Roy L]

Come on, helmuth, under LVT, the golden egg layers are only returning value that was "provided" partly by you and I, and solely by virtue of our existence in a Community of Individuals. Each of us are part and parcel to the holy (and wholly incorporated) trinity of land value provided by Government, Nature and
Community. That makes us quasi-stockholders with a stake in whatever land happens to be in the community we are in, since we are included in the "community" part of the "land value provider" equation. If we are going to give up what we would otherwise have been at liberty to use (wherever we happen to live, if nobody else existed), we should fully expect - and are fully entitled to, you know, a little sump'n sump'n in return for the deprivations we suffer at the hands of exclusive landholders - those otherwise parasites on the land, the usage of which we also have a perpetual claim on.

Sorry, Steven, but even trying your darnedest, you're having a little difficulty making liberty and justice sound bad.

See, the LVT people explained it to me, and I can see the bottom line for me: Everyone has to pay rent in perpetuity for any land they exclusively use, in exchange for the liberty deprivations they caused to everyone else. If we grant the government the power to subject others to perpetual involuntary servitude,

Lie. No one is compelled to labor under LVT, only to pay for what they deprive others of, over and above their equal share of what nature provided equally to all. You are just lying.

we will get a free pass as individuals. We will get an exemption (perhaps even a dividend), worth a certain, uniform amount, based on all the deprivations we have suffered! Uniformly, of course.

Thus recognizing the equal (uniform) human rights to life and liberty by equally compensating their abrogation.

The only problem I have, though, is that I am not willing to sell my soul (that is, my unalienable right to liberty to all that I would otherwise have been at liberty to non-exclusively use) in exchange for a government exemption.

LOL! You are self-evidently lying, Steven, as you have already eagerly GIVEN your soul, and your rights to life and liberty, away to private landowners in return for NO exemption.

My natural liberty rights are not for sale for mess of LVT pottage.

They aren't for sale at all, because you do not have them: you have already given them away to landowners in return for no pottage. That is very much the point.

If this is truly the unalienable birthright of each individual, then it cannot be collectivized on anyone's behalf without their individual consent.

An individual exemption is by definition not "collectivized," stop lying. And "collective" is not a swear word that you can just apply indiscriminately to anything you don't like.

When it comes to a deprivation of my natural liberty rights to non-exclusive use of lands, no compensation can be considered just.

LOL!! Except that you already willingly gave your liberty rights away to landowners in return for no compensation at all, and you somehow consider THAT just....

The uniform, universal LVT exemption is actually better than just compensation, as even a very limited secure right to exclusive use is worth far more than your natural liberty right to unlimited non-exclusive use. You know this is true, as you have paid a lot for the very limited exclusive tenure on the land you purport to own, while you have little or no interest in exercising your right of non-exclusive use on the vast areas of public lands where you are pretty much free to do so.

Nobody should be granted exclusive use of any land over which I have a natural liberty claim to non-exclusive use. Ever. That is an unconscionable violation of all my natural liberty rights, which "meeza lubs gubmint" must protect - and not pimp out or rent out on my behalf. That is presumptuous, and a theft if it is without my individual consent.

That is disingenuous, as it's somehow hunky dory with you that government has already done exactly that for the unearned benefit of private landowners.

It is also incoherent and self-refuting, as only government is competent to secure your claimed right to non-exclusive use, but government only exists in the first place because of the need to secure exclusive tenure to protect the valid property rights of those who make fixed improvements. You can't square that circle, Steven, sorry. Your whole argument is self-refuting.

An exemption makes everywhere I live akin to some kind of floating reservation. Screw that.

Uh-huh. "Screw that" restoration of your rights to life and liberty... but you are somehow fine with not getting even that "floating reservation" under the current system...

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that.

If there is gold in them thar hills, or in a mine, I DEMAND non-exclusive access to that gold. If there is a beautiful view of the ocean in a mansion on a cliff, no exemption can compensate for that.

Sure it can. You are merely pretending to hold values that you know you have already betrayed by supporting the system of private landowning. Have you forgotten so soon that you have roundly declared the right to liberty does not exist, except as a "right" to pay landowners for it?

I want non-exclusive access, which I am willing to share with everyone, to that land with the view.

Sorry, Stevie, but grown-ups know they can't always get what they want -- or DEMAND.

How do you propose to respect the property rights of those who make fixed improvements to the land, the problem for which landowning was the simple, obvious solution -- that turned out to be wrong?

NO EXEMPTION can compensate me for this kind of deprivation, because that deprivation will not enable me to have non-exclusive use of equivalent lands. I see how that worked for the aboriginal Americans and displaced hunter-gatherers everywhere, who were always goodly and willing to share, but were displaced to worse lands every time.

You know that the dispossessed aboriginals were never granted exemptions remotely similar to those proposed under LVT, so no, you DIDN'T see how it worked for them.

I don't want to live as a parasite on the land, robbing others of their natural liberty rights, while pretending that it is OK, so long as I "justly" compensate them (through the government that pimps out those rights).

Right. You just want to live as a parasite on the land, robbing others of their natural liberty rights, while pretending that it is OK, WITHOUT justly compensating others in any way at all.

No, no LVT for me. As a proper and pure geolibertarian, allowing for exclusive use of lands is like shaking hands with the devil.

IOW, as a foolish little Georgerer's apprentice who has learned a little of the geoist magic and now refuses to learn the rest, you think you can make the broom of rights respond only to your will, and ignore the well-being of the society to serve whose health and prosperity it exists in the first place.

There is nobody who can sell or rent my liberty birthright to non-exclusive use of ALL LANDS in my community, because my natural liberty rights are UNALIENABLE, and UN-OWNABLE, and therefore UNCONTROLLABLE - by anyone but me.

Wrong. Your rights only exist in the first place to strengthen society, and for no other reason. They do not exist to serve you or cater to your whims. If you think any right of yours can be bent to society's harm, you are simply mistaken about what rights are and what they are based on.

A deprivation does not cease to be a deprivation because someone shelled out compensate. The original deprivation - of all the advantages, which are the most important part - still exists.

It is true that some people -- they are called, "sociopaths" -- are not willing to accept the adjustments of their natural liberty that are necessary to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all when people live together closely with one another in society.

You need to re-read my exchange with hb and Buddha. Rights only exist in the first place to make society stronger. There can therefore be no such thing as a right that makes society weaker, as your absurdly claimed "right" to keep everyone else in society at a hunter-gatherer or nomadic herding level of existence would do.

How dare you presume to rent out my INDIVIDUAL natural liberty birthright

No right to weaken society can possibly exist, any more than a right unilaterally to extinguish others' rights can exist.

to all the highest bidding golden egg stealing land parasites, Roy.

<yawn> The parasites are the landowners who steal the golden eggs under the CURRENT system, Steven, as I have proved to you many times and you know very well. Under LVT, landholders have to repay the full value of what they take and therefore cannot, repeat, CANNOT live as parasites, conspicuously UNlike landowners under the current system. You know that, too.

That makes you an accomplice, and very much aligned with thieves,

You are a lying sack of $#!+, Steven. I have proved, repeat, PROVED that it is the landowner who is the thief. You know this.

because for you it's not a question of whether exclusive use of land will be tolerated, decriminalized, as natural liberty deprivations are allowed,

Right, for me it's not a question because there is no other way to secure the property rights of those who produce fixed improvements -- which are the sine qua non of civilization. Unlike you, I am not married to a puerile, autistic, even sociopathic notion of rights that admits of no flexibility, no adjustment to accommodate reality, no recognition that rights are above all practical, not theoretical constructs (though actually, you are only disingenuously pretending to be married to that notion because you have no other facts, logic or arguments to offer).

but only which collective band of merry thieves is going to be allowed to accomplish this for a collective price.

<yawn> "Collective" is not a swear word that you can just hurl indiscriminately at anything you don't like, Steven.

That's pure evil, Roy.

No, that's a cretinous lie, Steven. The very concept of evil is grounded in what is harmful to society. As exclusive land tenure is crucial to society's prosperity, it cannot be evil.

Count me out of your band of merry accomplices to all those bands of merry thieves.

It is landowners who are the thieves (as well as murderers), as already proved -- and you are their accomplice.

I am still displaced, I still have no NON-EXCLUSIVE access to the golden eggs and other advantages that nature provides from use of better lands

What nature provides doesn't amount to golden eggs -- as your hunter-gatherer ancestors could inform you, if you were willing to be informed -- and what government and the community provide (which does amount to golden eggs), they have a right to withhold from their enemies.

- so the natural liberty deprivation still exists, WITH OR WITHOUT COMPENSATION

Deprivations of liberty are inherent in social existence, as every adult understands. Just compensation is what prevents them from being wrongful.

- which ROBS ME of all the advantages that would otherwise be free - to me as an individual - provided that my access and usage is non-exclusive.

LVT provides compensation, private landowning doesn't, and you prefer the alternative that doesn't, as you have already said many times, so stop lying.

My natural liberty rights are not for sale, Roy

Right: you already eagerly gave them away to landowners in return for nothing.

- not even by a tyrannous majority of prior mountain pass thieves-turned-government

You know you are lying. The bandit/landowner only takes, and provides nothing, while what government provides is what makes the difference between land value in Slovenia and in Somalia.

- who have no right to deprive me of all the advantages that Government, Nature and Community provides FREELY for anyone who makes non-exclusive use of lands -- which I am fully willing to share.

Wrong AGAIN. Government and the community indisputably have a right to deprive you of what they provide.

Oh, and screw the individual exemption, too.

Oooh, cogently argued....

I don't want exclusive access to lands, as that is asking me to indulge in evil, to get my hands dirty as I slop from the exclusive-use parasite trough.

Well, you've already admitted you slop from exactly that trough, and paid good money to do so, so you are just lying again.

No pot-kettle hypocrisy here,

ROTFL!! Not much!!

and no deprivation of other people's natural liberty birthrights is desired or tolerated. No quarter asked for, none given.

Natural liberty is a physical fact. Rights come from society.

I want non-exclusive access to the gold mine/cliff on the hill overlooking the ocean.

You can't always get what you want... (sniff)

Tell me an individual exemption can compensate me for the equivalent of that. Impossible.

It's not only possible but obvious, as the contrasting condition of people in hunter-gatherer societies and modern advanced societies proves.

Exclusive access to a mine means that I as an individual am deprived of FREE access to that same ore, which is much more valuable to me than any exemption.

No, it is not, as your hunter-gatherer ancestors could inform you, if you were willing to be informed, which you are not.

You didn't solve the liberty deprivations problem (of FREE NON-EXCLUSIVE ACCESS) with LVT, Roy.

That wasn't the only problem I wanted LVT to solve, and in any case the landowner privilege you favor solved it far less than LVT.

You exacerbated and multiplied it, closing the door on all such FREE access, making it all but impossible - available by exclusive access only.

If abrogation of the liberty right of non-exclusive access was the only land-related rights problem in play, you might have had a point. But it's not, so you don't. There are also the problems of efficient resource allocation, of funding government without injustice or harm to the economy, of securing the valid property rights of those who make fixed improvements, of fostering economic prosperity, of preventing violent conflict over resources, etc. LVT solves them all. Your silly and disingenuous nonsense doesn't solve any of them.

[eduardo89]

So, Roy, now do you really feel about an LVT?

[Steven Douglas]

Sorry, Steven, but even trying your darnedest, you're having a little difficulty making liberty and justice sound bad.

No, I make actual liberty and justice look good. You're the one who calls real liberty and justice evil, while redefining oppressiveness and perpetual injustice as "liberty and justice".

No one is compelled to labor under LVT, only to pay for what they deprive others of, over and above their equal share of what nature provided equally to all.

Why contradict yourself? Why say "No one is compelled to labor under LVT...", when that is patently untrue. You could honestly say, within your own framework, "People are only compelled to labor under LVT to the extent that they must pay for what they deprive others of..." The compulsion to labor is very much there at all times. Perpetually. The so-called "advantages" of land value don't magically convert themselves to money and appear in anyone's pocket, simply by virtue of landholding.

LOL! You are self-evidently lying, Steven, as you have already eagerly GIVEN your soul, and your rights to life and liberty, away to private landowners in return for NO exemption.

In your goofy paradigm only, Roy.

They aren't for sale at all, because you do not have them: you have already given them away to landowners in return for no pottage. That is very much the point.

No, Roy, once I pay other landowners for the land (not "rent" but actual purchase payments), I get a fixed quantity of land in return. Much better than any mess of pottage exemption. That is very much the point. If I wanted to rent from a landowner, I could. But if I want no rent, I can buy just as well. Then the only pernicious rent-seeking bastards violating the principle of landownership as a right are governments that allow for property taxes - making themselves perpetual landlords, collecting rents which are due and owing without regard to one's ability to pay.

An individual exemption is by definition not "collectivized," stop lying. And "collective" is not a swear word that you can just apply indiscriminately to anything you don't like.

Everything about your philosophy is based on collectivism, Roy. And it is not the individual exemption that is collectivized - only the basis for it.

...you have paid a lot for the very limited exclusive tenure on the land you purport to own, while you have little or no interest in exercising your right of non-exclusive use on the vast areas of public lands where you are pretty much free to do so.

"non-exclusive use" - what a macabre joke, if it wasn't a lie in reality. Unless you mean that I can wander some parks freely, gather berries and smell the air. Go pitch a tent on public lands that aren't slated for that usage, Roy. You'll find there are laws governing even that. Are you hungry? See some game you want for dinner? Sorry, that's controlled too. Want to build a fire to cook that game so you don't get sick? Sorry, that's controlled too. Vast areas of public lands just free for non-exclusive use, indeed. Come up out of the rabbit hole, Alice.

...as only government is competent to secure your claimed right to non-exclusive use...

Pretty much proven incompetent in that respect...

...but government only exists in the first place because of the need to secure exclusive tenure to protect the valid property rights of those who make fixed improvements.

Yes, and your normative, your premise, Roy, is in the narrowing the definition of "valid", such that landownership is not part of property ownership. That's your narrowing view of "valid", and also the proper role of government through your geolibertarian collectivist lens, and completely debatable.

And the net effect of LVT, just like property taxes - don't make fixed improvements to the land, or do anything else that would cause the value of the unimproved land to increase.

Uh-huh. "Screw that" restoration of your rights to life and liberty... but you are somehow fine with not getting even that "floating reservation" under the current system...

Yeah, I prefer a fixed reservation. Of my own acquisition and purchase. Freely convertible through sale of one and repurchase of another, with no evil landlord in the mix, public or private.

You are merely pretending to hold values that you know you have already betrayed by supporting the system of private landowning. Have you forgotten so soon that you have roundly declared the right to liberty does not exist, except as a "right" to pay landowners for it?

No, you idiot, I was playing devil's advocate, and quite obviously I thought, to argue from your premises. You can't even do that, Roy.

Sorry, Stevie, but grown-ups know they can't always get what they want -- or DEMAND.

LOL, I agree. You should be quite used to knowing that by now, Roy.

How do you propose to respect the property rights of those who make fixed improvements to the land, the problem for which landowning was the simple, obvious solution -- that turned out to be wrong?

Easy - it didn't turn out to be wrong. It was never the problem. You're the one pointing out that others are condemned to pay rents that keep them enslaved and impoverished. Your answer: a friggin exemption - not for a specific quantity of land, but only "land value" exemption that can be applied somewhere on "good lands" that you "propose" be made available to everyone who has an exemption (how about do that first, and see what happens? Open up all available public lands, but only in limited quantities per first-time homesteaders. Would you be in favor of that to start with, Roy? Fat chance of that ever happening, now or under an LVT).

Meanwhile, the state takes over the role of those you hate so much, as all previous landlords are turned into a renter class. Yippee, and mission accomplished. That tickles your collectivist turnabout-equals-fairplay sensibilities to no end, but never did you propose that landownership should be everyone's right, because somewhere along the way you got the "LIGHT BULB!" that everyone was somehow violating everyone else's "otherwise at liberty" fact, which you want recognized as a right, so that those liberty deprivations can be recognized as "unjust", or "invalid" based on anyone's exclusive use of lands.

You know that the dispossessed aboriginals were never granted exemptions remotely similar to those proposed under LVT, so no, you DIDN'T see how it worked for them.

Yesss... isn't it funny how that works, Roy? Propose in one hand, then let reality kick in, as the government shits in the other, and see which one fills up fastest!

Those "dispossessed aboriginals" had government proposals which were turned into PROMISES - that weren't kept. Like pretty much all government promises over time. That's why your LVT "single tax" solution and "proposed" exemption promise, even if it was a good thing, isn't worth anything at all, Roy, because you haven't addressed that one niggling problem - that government does not keep its promises. That's why we CONSTRAIN government, and still must remain vigilant, knowing in advance that Feed Me Seymour! is going to grow many heads and devour your children if you let it grow.

You just want to live as a parasite on the land, robbing others of their natural liberty rights, while pretending that it is OK, WITHOUT justly compensating others in any way at all.

Yes. That is precisely what I want to do, because I don't recognize "otherwise at liberty" as a right, nor do I pretend that my exclusive access to land is "unjustly" depriving anyone of any thing. You haven't made that case at all. Capice?

Wrong. Your rights only exist in the first place to strengthen society, and for no other reason.

Ah, da gud o'da peephole. Live long and collectively prosper. Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (and most certainly the one).

Collectivist. Nas-tee, Dir-tee, Fil-thee Collectivist.

If you can't acknowledge the rights of each individual, as individual, you aren't worthy to look after the rights of more than one individual.

They do not exist to serve you or cater to your whims.

That is precisely what individual rights are for, Roy - so that we can cater to our own whims.

If you think any right of yours can be bent to society's harm, you are simply mistaken about what rights are and what they are based on.

I don't. And I don't recognize or accept your twisted views on landownership, in and of itself, as the source of harm to that thing you call society, but which I see as nothing but individuals, EACH of whom have rights.

You need to re-read my exchange with hb and Buddha. Rights only exist in the first place to make society stronger.

I did read it. What an evil, nasty, collectivist rationale for trampling on individual rights. There is nothing special about that Roy, and those aren't "rights" you are describing. Those are privileges masquerading as rights.

There can therefore be no such thing as a right that makes society weaker...

I find the appeal to "society", with all its winners and losers under ANY regime, nauseating, naive, and even infantile.

...as your absurdly claimed "right" to keep everyone else in society at a hunter-gatherer or nomadic herding level of existence would do.

Nah, I'm the only one who wants to give everyone equal access to the "right" to eliminate "evil landlords", and thieves of all kinds, public and private, from their lives. You are the only one who is saying that the existence of a landlord is only good if it is a public landlord. That's no different than Dennis Kucinich, who thinks that a counterfeiting Fed is BAD in the private hands, but GOOD in the hands of government - fer da gud o-da peephole.

No right to weaken society can possibly exist, any more than a right unilaterally to extinguish others' rights can exist.

You're the only proposing to a massive rights extinguisher, Roy. You don't see it that way, but that's because you have a twisted, completely corrupted view of right and wrong.

You are a lying sack of $#!+, Steven. I have proved, repeat, PROVED that it is the landowner who is the thief. You know this.

You have only asserted, Roy, and repeated it in circles, ad nauseum. You have PROVED nothing whatsoever, except that you want to shift what you see as the power of THEFT, which will somehow be magically transformed into JUST COMPENSATION when practiced by the state.

Right, for me it's not a question because there is no other way to secure the property rights of those who produce fixed improvements -- which are the sine qua non of civilization.

Again, out of the rabbit hole, Roy. The only way to secure the property rights of those who produce fixed improvements is to secure the ownership of the FOUNDATION upon which those improvements rest. You want to do exactly the opposite of that, since your interest is in not in individual property rights, but rather whomever has the willingness AND ability to make the state strongest. That's the fascist component of LVT.

In that, you are married to a puerile, autistic, even sociopathic notion of rights that admits of no flexibility, no adjustment to accommodate individual reality, no recognition that individual rights are the only rights that matter in any society.

<yawn> "Collective" is not a swear word that you can just hurl indiscriminately at anything you don't like, Steven.

Sure it is.

No, that's a cretinous lie, Steven. The very concept of evil is grounded in what is harmful to society.

There you go again. Collectivist. Someone thunks Granny on her head, and leaves her bleeding and dying, and all you can think, in your Hive Oriented Mind, is that the Hive is in danger. Fuck Granny, she's disposable. Society is now weakened - that's what needs to be protected.

As exclusive land tenure is crucial to society's prosperity, it cannot be evil.

Again with "society", and "its" prosperity. Collectivist. (sorry for the spray, I spit sometimes when I use that cuss word)

It is landowners who are the thieves (as well as murderers).

Yeah, so let's make sure that if we're going to have thieving, murdering landlords (not just landowners, but landlords), that we make it The Good Kind. You know, the one that will look after a Strong Society.

LVT provides compensation, private landowning doesn't.

Yeah, private landowning can eliminate the entire notion of "providing compensation". It would be a wonder to me that you don't advocate the outlawing of rent collection of all kinds, were it not for your screwy rationale that an "otherwise deprivation" being a fictitious "liberty right".

Right: you already eagerly gave them away to landowners in return for nothing.

I was arguing as if LVT was already in place, Roy. No landowners in that fairy tale world, remember?

Natural liberty is a physical fact. Rights come from society.

CORRECTAMUNDO!

That those who would otherwise been at liberty to access land that is exclusively used by someone else are indeed deprived of that specific natural liberty. That is true. That this 'liberty' is a 'right', and that such a 'deprivation' is 'unjust' - is NOT A FACT. That is a normative assertion on your part, which has yet to be codified, recognized as an actual right, and consequent deprivation, according to law.

And yet you persist in arguing, asserting disingenuously and quite dishonestly from your premises, as if they were already one in the same.

You can't always get what you want... (sniff)

No, Roy, that is true of everyone. I accept that, and just do what I can. Wipe your tears.