What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Roy L]

No, I make actual liberty and justice look good.

No, Steven, you are LYING. This is the filthy, vicious, evil tyranny and injustice you grotesquely claim is, "liberty and justice":

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war
broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky
home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old
negroes, who said to me: 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God,
I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.' The planters, on the other hand, are contented
with the change. They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper
now than when we owned the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents
they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled
to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were
compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he
could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have
got all the work out of him they can."

From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885.
Reprinted in "Social Problems," by Henry George.

Your claim that this result is liberty and justice is just despicable filth.

You're the one who calls real liberty and justice evil, while redefining oppressiveness and perpetual injustice as "liberty and justice".

No, you are telling evil lies again, Steven. Here's more of your "real liberty and justice":

"The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent." -- Thomas Carlyle

And with perfect evil, you call what I advocate -- rewards commensurate with contributions and payments commensurate with deprivations -- "oppressiveness and perpetual injustice."

Such claims are simply filth. Evil filth.

Why contradict yourself?

Why always lie about what I have plainly written?

Why say "No one is compelled to labor under LVT...", when that is patently untrue.

It is indisputably true. If it were not, you could show how someone is compelled to labor under LVT, and you can't.

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..."

No, I could not, because it is objectively false, like all your other claims. No one is compelled to labor under LVT, ever. Even those who wish to deprive others of access to more than their share of the land need not labor to do so. They can make their just compensation out of income not earned by labor, or indeed out of any sort of assets they wish.

The compulsion to labor is very much there at all times.

No, Steven it is never there at all. You are just flatly lying about what I have written in plain English, as usual.

Perpetually.

All apologists for landowner privilege must lie. 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.

No one said economics was magic, Steven. Although, it might as well be for all you understand of it.

Anyone who holds land in an LVT system can always pay the LVT by simply allowing the high bidder to use the land. No compelled labor whatsoever. You are just lying. As usual.

No, Roy, once I pay other landowners for the land (not "rent" but actual purchase payments),

?? "Once you pay"??? ROTFL!!! Why would you ever pay lazy, greedy parasites for what nature provided for free, unless you had already given away -- or been robbed of, except that you refuse to know it was robbery -- your liberty to use it?

I get a fixed quantity of land in return.

By "agreeing" to pay them in return for nothing (the land was already there, with no help from them or anyone else), you have already admitted that you are paying them for permission to exercise your erstwhile right to liberty.

Much better than any mess of pottage exemption. That is very much the point.

Yes, well, just as it is much more appealing to evil, greedy parasites to be a slave owner than an honest producer, it is no doubt also much more appealing to them to be a landowner rather than an honest producer. 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.

Buying land is just paying all the rent in advance, just like a slave buying his freedom from his owner by paying for all his future compelled labor in advance. So you are merely describing how you have successfully deceived yourself.

Then the only pernicious rent-seeking bastards violating the principle of landownership as a right

What principle is that, Steven? The fallacious principle of begging the question? I have already proved to you that landownership inherently violates the liberty rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land, and therefore CANNOT be 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.

No, you are still always lying, Steven. LVT is inherently always affordable. The landholder always, by definition, has the ability to pay it by just allowing the high bidder to use the land. LVT is always levied with full regard for ability to pay, because holding land ALWAYS CONFERS the ability to pay its full rent. That is very much the point.

But even if you want to redefine “ability to pay” dishonestly, as “ability to pay while forcibly depriving others of opportunity but not capitalizing on it yourself, and counting only income, not assets, as conferring ability to pay,” then you still can't defend your claims: when you take something home from the grocery store, is the storekeeper obliged to adjust the price you pay for it based on your ability to pay? No? Then why would government be obliged to charge you less in tax than the value of what you take from society, just because you can't afford to pay for what you are taking without suffering a loss of net asset value, and consequently want to steal it?

Everything about your philosophy is based on collectivism, Roy.

Empty name calling. The only "collectivism" in my philosophy is the FACT OF OBJECTIVE PHYSICAL REALITY that people are social animals, and our genetic make-up has been shaped by individual reproductive success within societal success just as much as that of chimpanzees, ants, wolves, etc.

And it is not the individual exemption that is collectivized - only the basis for it.

The basis for it is the individual right to liberty -- which can only be secured collectively. Stop lying.

"non-exclusive use" - what a macabre joke, if it wasn't a lie in reality.

It is fact.

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.

Of course: pitching tents can compromise others' rights of non-exclusive use.

Are you hungry? See some game you want for dinner? Sorry, that's controlled too.

As above.

Want to build a fire to cook that game so you don't get sick? Sorry, that's controlled too.

As above. You just want to call your intended exclusive uses non-exclusive.

Pretty much proven incompetent in that respect...

Except by comparison with everything else that has ever been tried...

Yes, and your normative, your premise, Roy, is in the narrowing the definition of "valid", such that landownership is not part of property ownership.

WHICH IT NEVER, EVER WAS, until the advent of settled agriculture and significant fixed improvements some thousands of years ago made it a quick and dirty solution to the problem of securing property rights in those improvements.

That's your narrowing view of "valid", and also the proper role of government through your geolibertarian collectivist lens, and completely debatable.

I'm still waiting for you to offer any actual arguments in debate. So far, I've seen nothing from you but factually false claims, outright lies, equivocation fallacies, name calling, lies, strawman fallacies, evasions and lies.

However, I completely agree that some of my premises are normative. But as explained in my exchange with Buddha, I have refuted the false dichotomy fallacy of normative vs factual. The normative is ultimately grounded in the physical facts of human evolutionary history.

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.

ROTFL! Your economic ignorance and/or dishonesty is hilarious. LVT ENCOURAGES fixed improvements, because that's the only way the user is able to use the land productively enough to pay the LVT. And fixed improvements BY DEFINITION do not cause unimproved land value to increase, because unimproved land value is DEFINED AS the value the land would have if all the improvements were removed.

Every objection you have offered to LVT, or ever will offer, is objectively wrong.

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.

No, Steven, you are just lying again. Property in land INHERENTLY creates a greedy, privileged, evil, parasitic private landlord class, as already proved. There is no way around 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.

No, Steven. You tried (unsuccessfully, of course) to "argue from my premises" because you could not consistently defend your own premises, and thought you could derive a reductio ad absurdum from mine. But you couldn't.

Easy - it didn't turn out to be wrong. It was never the problem.

ROTFL!! I suppose that must be why landowners are proverbial for their greed and parasitism in every culture that has an established tradition of private landowning, and why landowner privilege reliably destroys every civilization that lets it get a foothold. It must be why land reform to take land away from landowners and give it to users has been brilliantly successful in places like Japan, Taiwan, Korea, etc. It must be why Hong Kong, which has no private landowning, is reliably at the top of lists of the freest countries in the world. It must be why the crushing burden of rents and servitude to greedy, idle, parasitic landowners caused revolutions in China (at least three times), Russia, France, Mexico, Cuba, etc., etc.

You're the one pointing out that others are condemned to pay rents that keep them enslaved and impoverished.

And you're the one who wants to keep them enslaved and impoverished. Right.

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"

Putting scare quotes around clear, simple English words to try to impute a meaning that isn't there is despicable behavior, Steven. Despicable.

be made available to everyone who has an exemption

All resident citizens would have exemptions, and it is obvious that only someone as stupid as a bag of hammers could suggest that "quantity of land" be the basis of an equal exemption, as an acre in a prime location can be worth millions, while an acre in most places is not enough to survive on. Land value is the measure of economic advantage obtained by use of land. If the universal individual exemption is not based on value, some will have an unjust advantage over others. That is self-evident and indisputable. You have merely realized that it proves your beliefs are false, stupid, and evil, so you have to refuse to know it.

(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?

That is exactly what LVT would do. It just wouldn't make such use of land by "homesteaders" the basis for receipt of an arbitrarily large welfare subsidy giveaway financed by taxing away the fruits of other people's labor indefinitely into the future.

Fat chance of that ever happening, now or under an LVT).

So again, your only "argument" against LVT is that some other system is currently in place, and thanks to dishonest, brain-dead, evil opposition from people like you, LVT is not likely to be implemented as proposed. Moreover, you actually think that sort of puerile, anti-rational garbage deserves to be read and responded to.

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.

If landowning is anyone's right, it cannot be everyone's right. That fact is inherent in the fixity of land's supply.

Yesss... isn't it funny how that works, Roy?

Funny how you have to lie about everything, you mean? No, I don't find it all that funny. It's totally predictable. Which is why I predicted it, and why my prediction has been proved correct.

Propose in one hand, then let reality kick in, as the government shits in the other, and see which one fills up fastest!

"Meeza hatesa gubmint." The entire "content" of your “philosophy”...

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.

As above.

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?

I have proved it indisputably. You just deny and refuse to know it -- like a flat earther denying and refusing to know the facts that prove the earth is round even though it has been proved round indisputably -- because you have already realized that the facts prove your beliefs are false and evil.

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.

Your use of the word, "collectivist" purely for purposes of name calling does not impress me in the slightest, Steven. In fact, is it puerile and laughable. Yes, I am willing to know the fact that human beings are irreducibly social animals, and can only thrive in society, and to the degree that their society thrives. You just refuse to know that fact, and call anyone who is willing to know it a "collectivist" because you want to thrive at others' expense -- at society's expense -- and pretend there are no consequences of such behavior, like any other greedy, lying, evil sociopath.

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.

You have become confused again, Steven. Of the two of us, I am the one here who is championing individual rights. You are the one trying to rationalize and justify the removal of individuals' rights for the unearned profit of greedy, evil parasites.

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

No, they are not. Such a concept of rights is jejune and self-evidently vacuous and circular. What you really mean is that other people's individual rights exist to be sacrificed on the altar of the Great God Property to satisfy and cater to YOUR whims.

I don't.

Yes, you indisputably do. See your own words, immediately above.

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.

Your refusal to know the fact that society is an organic and interdependent whole and not just a random set of unrelated individuals does not and cannot alter the fact that it is.

I did read it. What an evil, nasty, collectivist rationale for trampling on individual rights.

It is the BASIS of individual rights in empirical fact -- as opposed to Buddha's (and your?) doomed and laughable attempt to base individual rights on religious faith.

There is nothing special about that Roy, and those aren't "rights" you are describing. Those are privileges masquerading as rights.

No, they are indisputably rights. You just do not know what rights are or why they exist.

I find the appeal to "society", with all its winners and losers under ANY regime,

That is a dishonest attempt by you to pretend that there is no difference between a social regime such as the one I advocate, where those who contribute the most to the welfare of all win and those who steal the most from others lose, and a regime such as the one you advocate, where those who steal the most from others win, and those who contribute the most to all lose.

nauseating, naive, and even infantile.

It is your pretense that society does not exist that is nauseating, naive and infantile. And dishonest.

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.

Nope. That's just a lie from you. You have stated explicitly that you want to enshrine landlord greed, privilege and parasitism as rights. It is inherently impossible to separate landowner privilege from thievery, as I already proved to you by the example of the bandit.

You are the only one who is saying that the existence of a landlord is only good if it is a public landlord.

No, I am not. Many, many people, including some of the greatest minds who have ever lived, have agreed with me.

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.

Fiat money is not counterfeit, and Kucinich is pretty much right about the monetary system, while Ron Paul is wrong. Trying to go from a debt money system to a gold money system would be catastrophic. Gold worked well as money in the past and is the best base for commodity money, but we can't get there from here. We CAN free ourselves from the banksters by using fiat money issued by government and eliminating debt money issued by private banks. All we have to do is separate the money ISSUING power from the money SPENDING power, and make price stability the former's only mandate.

You have only asserted, Roy, and repeated it in circles, ad nauseum. You have PROVED nothing whatsoever,

You are lying, Steven. I proved that the landowner is no different in substance from an outright bandit. I also proved that you cannot 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?"

And no one else can, either.

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.

That is exactly correct. The state, unlike the private landowner, is the SOURCE of the value I propose to recover for its maintenance. LVT is the only possible way to make government self-financing. You just don't want government to be self-financing. You want government to steal from the productive and give the loot to landowners in return for nothing. That is the entire content of your "philosophy": something for nothing, for YOU.

Such a "philosophy" is just evil, vicious filth.

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 have made that objectively false claim a number of times in this thread. Why can't you ever remember that Hong Kong proves all such stupid lies are objectively false?

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.

No, you are still always lying about what I have plainly written. It is the strength and health of SOCIETY that is the standard of right and wrong, not the state. Two different things, no matter how you try to pretend they are both just "collectivist."

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,

There is no such thing as "individual reality." Reality is objective, not subjective.

no recognition that individual rights are the only rights that matter in any society.

Why do individual rights matter? Blank out.

Sure it is.

No, that is merely a confession of moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

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.

That is exactly correct. We are all disposable, because in fact, we are all going to die. Children often have a problem coming to terms with that, and even adults may turn to religious fantasies in their desperation to evade it, but I don't. Unlike you, ACTUAL grannies are aware of that fact, and 9 out of 10 of them would sacrifice their own lives for their children and grandchildren without a second thought. Rights, and the human capacity for moral reasoning that they are founded on, are simply evolution's way of dealing with the fact that in society, the effects of grannie's situation and actions on her children and grandchildren's welfare are often subtle, indirect, and counter-intuitive.

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

Content = 0 (other than your usual sociopathic blather)

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.

Evolution will make sure that eventually the non-thieving and non-murdering kind of landlord -- which inherently cannot be any kind but government, as government is the source of land value and the only competent securer of the right to life -- prevails because that is more effective. Privilege can't compete with justice on a level playing field. It's just a question of how much needless suffering, how many needless deaths, apologists for privilege and injustice like you will force upon long-suffering humanity in the meantime.

Yeah, private landowning can eliminate the entire notion of "providing compensation".

No, it can never, ever do that because the injustice will always be there, like an infected boil that cannot heal and can only get worse. As long as the injustice is there, the need for compensation will be there. It can never be eliminated.

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".

If you ever figure out what you intended to say there, and can translate it into English, let me know.

I was arguing as if LVT was already in place, Roy.

No, you were "arguing" that LVT in place would be something other than what it is.

No landowners in that fairy tale world, remember?

No landowners in Hong Kong, remember?

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.

Thanks for conceding the whole debate.

That this 'liberty' is a 'right', and that such a 'deprivation' is 'unjust' - is NOT A FACT.

Yes, actually, it is. It is merely a fact that, because it proves your beliefs are false and evil, you have to refuse to know.

That is a normative assertion on your part,

Yes, and I have explained that the normative - factual dichotomy is fallacious.

which has yet to be codified, recognized as an actual right, and consequent deprivation, according to law.

Law is an attempt to codify rights. It is not a source of rights.

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

No, I have never said rights were all codified in law. I have stated many times that laws often violate rights, as laws codifying ownership of human beings or land do.

[Steven Douglas]

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war
broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky
home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old
negroes, who said to me: 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God,
I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.' The planters, on the other hand, are contented
with the change. They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper
now than when we owned the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents
they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled
to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were
compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he
could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have
got all the work out of him they can."

From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885.
Reprinted in "Social Problems," by Henry George.

I already responded to that disgusting, obviously lying piece of hearsay Uncle Tomfoolery.

"The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent." -- Thomas Carlyle

Roy, Not even you are opposed to someone charging rent for nettles if someone else is willing to pay.

It is indisputably true. If it were not, you could show how someone is compelled to labor under LVT, and you can't.

Already did. Remember Granny? Sitting on land that is now considered too valuable for her exemption to justify? She is compelled to labor in order to keep her place and remain where she is, or else she will lose it, according evil, filthy, despicable force-using Roy and his LVT ilk, who would much rather that Granny get off the "better lands" and make way for "more productive hands".

Indisputable. Irrefutable. Filthy. Despicable.

...Even those who wish to deprive others of access to more than their share of the land...

Shut up with your "fair share" collectivist gibberish. It's evil. And nauseating.

Anyone who holds land in an LVT system can always pay the LVT by simply allowing the high bidder to use the land. No compelled labor whatsoever.

ALLOWING? Well, if they choose NOT to "allow", it will be made very clear to them that the ONLY choice is to labor more or GET OUT - make way (BY FORCE) for those wonderful "more productive hands".

Why would you ever pay lazy, greedy parasites for what nature provided for free, unless you had already given away -- or been robbed of, except that you refuse to know it was robbery -- your liberty to use it?

For the same reason I might pay someone for a lump of gold they were lucky enough to find, you idiot. Because they OWN it, and I acknowledge their RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP. Because I am a good person, with honor, and integrity, and no desire to steal - not even under a collectivist shroud.

By "agreeing" to pay them in return for nothing (the land was already there, with no help from them or anyone else), you have already admitted that you are paying them for permission to exercise your erstwhile right to liberty.

No, you moron. I never HAD a "right to liberty", let alone an "erstwhile right" where their land was concerned. That's your blithering twisted fantasy, Roy. Not reality. And I am not paying them for nothing. I am paying them for THEIR LAND. Which they own. Which I want to own. So I will pay them for it, because I am not a thief - individually or collectively.

Yes, well, just as it is much more appealing to evil, greedy parasites to be a slave owner than an honest producer, it is no doubt also much more appealing to them to be a landowner rather than an honest producer. THAT is very much the point.

Shut your filthy keyboard, demon troglodyte collectivist land thief. Calling evil good and good evil. Harumph. That's nasty talk right there.

Buying land is just paying all the rent in advance

No, not "all of it". Once it's paid for, the rent payments end. Perpetual rent NEVER ENDS, and can NEVER be paid in full, in advance or otherwise. Which is the kind of slavery you advocate, and want to sell us all into. Perpetually. Slaver.

I have already proved to you that landownership inherently violates the liberty rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land, and therefore CANNOT be a right.

You haven't proved shit, Roy. Remember that "subtle" subject, as you called it? And "otherwise capacity" does not equal a right. Quit trying to slippery your way past that one, as if you've established something. Liar.

No, you are still always lying, Steven. LVT is inherently always affordable.

So is getting my pocket picked - most of the time. It's still theft.

The landholder always, by definition, has the ability to pay it by just allowing the high bidder to use the land. LVT is always levied with full regard for ability to pay, because holding land ALWAYS CONFERS the ability to pay its full rent. That is very much the point.

Quiet with your "he can always leave if he can't pay", which you phrase, in your disingenuously, intellectually and repugnantly dishonest way, as "allowing" the high bidder to use the land. Nasty spin.

But even if you want to redefine “ability to pay” dishonestly, as “ability to pay while forcibly depriving others of opportunity...

Moron, with your hair-brained spin notion of "forcibly depriving", and the whole other idiotic notion of entitlement to opportunity as if it was a right. Get off my land, creepy would-be parasite.

On MY land, I have SOLE DESPOTIC DOMINION. Nature provides me the opportunity, but I am both the community AND the government. You, on the other hand, are a creepy, nasty, thieving, would-be enslaving, FOREIGN INVADER. I form treaties with my SOVEREIGN neighbors to repel all your ilk. We can go to war over stuff like this, Roy, I have no problem with that.

Welcome to a community of sovereigns, Roy. You don't want to buy any of my land? Some of it's for sale, you know. No? Well, do you want to rent a room for the night? Sharecrop one of my fields for a time? Will you work for food? That choice is available to you as well. Oh, you just want to pitch a tent in my field - that I'm not doing anything with at the moment? Cost you five bucks field rent. No, make that ten bucks, because you're weird. And rude. Nice people stay for free.

Nah, better yet, move along, little cowboy - you're creeping my fellow landowning neighbors out.

[Roy L]

I already responded to that disgusting, obviously lying piece of hearsay Uncle Tomfoolery.

LOL! It is self-evidently the truth, and records a phenomenon widely remarked (though not widely understood) at the time: the effectively unaltered economic condition of the majority of emancipated slaves even decades after the Civil War.

Roy, Not even you are opposed to someone charging rent for nettles if someone else is willing to pay.

Wrong. It depends entirely on whether the "someone" charging the rent (and notice that you must dishonestly leave their identify unspecified) has earned it or not. The government employees and subcontractors who provide government services and infrastructure are not idle parasites as landowners are. Unlike the perfumed seigneur, they EARN the land rent they would receive as payment for their labor under LVT: they produce it. The landowner doesn't.

How many more times, and in how many more different ways, do I have to prove you wrong before you will become willing to consider the possibility that you actually ARE wrong?

Already did.

No, of course you didn't.

Remember Granny? Sitting on land that is now considered too valuable for her exemption to justify? She is compelled to labor in order to keep her place and remain where she is, or else she will lose it, according evil, filthy, despicable force-using Roy and his LVT ilk,

No, Steven, you are just lying, as usual. Firstly, she can stay where she is if she has other income or assets that she chooses to use to pay for what she is taking from others, so she is indisputably NOT "compelled to labor." Which proves you lied. Again.

Strike One.

Secondly, you deny that Granny would be "compelled to labor" were she the tenant of a PRIVATE landlord who raised the rent to a level she could not afford, so that again proves you lied by claiming she would be "compelled to labor" only if her landlord is a public one.

Strike Two.

Thirdly, you deny that Granny would be "compelled to labor" if she had a mortgage she could not make the payments on, and her dwelling was repossessed, so you are lying when you claim it is only inability to repay what she takes from society that results in her being "compelled to labor."

That's Strike Three, Steven. You're out.

who would much rather that Granny get off the "better lands" and make way for "more productive hands".

Yes, because unlike you I respect the free market, and understand that the incentives it provides benefit all, INCLUDING GRANNY. You, by contrast, only like freedom when it is your freedom or benefits you. You aren't interested in freedom for other people, or freedom that benefits other people. You call that kind of freedom "oppression and injustice."

Indisputable. Irrefutable.

Conclusively refuted and proved a lie above.

Filthy. Despicable.

Evil filth.

Shut up with your "fair share" collectivist gibberish. It's evil. And nauseating.

I understand that you hate and fear liberty, justice and truth, and oppose them with maniacal ferocity.

ALLOWING? Well, if they choose NOT to "allow",

I.e., forcibly to deprive others of their liberty...

it will be made very clear to them that the ONLY choice is to labor more or GET OUT - make way (BY FORCE) for those wonderful "more productive hands".

Just like the tenant of a private landlord, or a mortgage debtor. I have already proved all this to you many times, Steven. Your position is inconsistent, incoherent and indefensible.

For the same reason I might pay someone for a lump of gold they were lucky enough to find, you idiot. Because they OWN it, and I acknowledge their RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP.

The same reason you would cheerfully pay someone for air to breathe if they happened to have privatized the earth's atmosphere...?

Because I am a good person, with honor, and integrity, and no desire to steal - not even under a collectivist shroud.

No, you are a lying apologist for privilege and injustice with an overpowering lust to steal under a propertarian flag of convenience.

No, you moron. I never HAD a "right to liberty", let alone an "erstwhile right" where their land was concerned. That's your blithering twisted fantasy, Roy. Not reality.

It is a physical fact: you are at liberty to use it, but they (or government working on their behalf) deprive you of your liberty by force. You are just lying.

And I am not paying them for nothing.

You are indisputably paying them for nothing. What would stop you from using the land if they simply did not exist, and had never existed? Blank out.

I am paying them for THEIR LAND. Which they own. Which I want to own.

Just as you would pay an airlord for HIS AIR. Which he owned. Which you wanted to breathe.

See? Any talk of "their land" is nothing but a question-begging fallacy until you have provided evidence that it is rightly their land. Which you can't.

So I will pay them for it, because I am not a thief - individually or collectively.

All landowners are thieves, Steven, as I have proved.

Shut your filthy keyboard, demon troglodyte collectivist land thief. Calling evil good and good evil. Harumph. That's nasty talk right there.

Content = 0

No, not "all of it". Once it's paid for, the rent payments end.

But have already included all the future rent payments.

Perpetual rent NEVER ENDS, and can NEVER be paid in full, in advance or otherwise.

Because the flow of benefits the landholder takes from society, provided by government and the community, does not end.

Which is the kind of slavery you advocate, and want to sell us all into. Perpetually. Slaver.

Voluntarily paying market value for what you take is not slavery, that is just another lie from you.

You haven't proved shit, Roy.

Denial ain't just a river in Africa.

Remember that "subtle" subject, as you called it? And "otherwise capacity" does not equal a right.

Otherwise liberty does. That's all liberty is, or can be: what we would be free to do if others did not forcibly stop us.

Quit trying to slippery your way past that one, as if you've established something. Liar.

I have established the facts.

So is getting my pocket picked - most of the time. It's still theft.

But being required to pay market value for what you voluntarily choose to take from others is not theft, Steven. It is justice. You know this. Of course you do. You just always have to lie about it.

Quiet with your "he can always leave if he can't pay", which you phrase, in your disingenuously, intellectually and repugnantly dishonest way, as "allowing" the high bidder to use the land. Nasty spin.

It is indisputable fact, just as it is for the tenant of a private landlord or a mortgage debtor, and you have not made any argument to the contrary. As usual.

Moron, with your hair-brained spin notion of "forcibly depriving", and the whole other idiotic notion of entitlement to opportunity as if it was a right.

If you have no right to opportunity you have no right to life, as without opportunity, you cannot sustain your life.

Get off my land, creepy would-be parasite.

It is indisputably the landowner who is the parasite, as he takes a portion of production but does not make any contribution to production. Thus, you still cannot answer The Question.

On MY land, I have SOLE DESPOTIC DOMINION.

You are raving.

Nature provides me the opportunity,

And you deprive others of it.

but I am both the community AND the government.

Of course you aren't. You are just spewing absurdities.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire

You, on the other hand, are a creepy, nasty, thieving, would-be enslaving, FOREIGN INVADER.

You are lying, Steven. And you know it.

I form treaties with my SOVEREIGN neighbors to repel all your ilk.

You do no such thing, and you know it. You rely on government to do your dirty work for you, and do nothing whatever to "repel" those who would exercise their rights to liberty. You are simply lying.

We can go to war over stuff like this, Roy, I have no problem with that.

I am aware that you want to murder innocent people who try to exercise their rights to liberty.

Welcome to a community of sovereigns, Roy.

Except for the enslaved landless, of course....

You don't want to buy any of my land? Some of it's for sale, you know. No? Well, do you want to rent a room for the night? Sharecrop one of my fields for a time? Will you work for food? That choice is available to you as well. Oh, you just want to pitch a tent in my field - that I'm not doing anything with at the moment? Cost you five bucks field rent. No, make that ten bucks, because you're weird.

Thank you for describing your parasitism so accurately.

[Steven Douglas]

Blah, blah, geocollectivist gibberish, distortions, warped logic, and a never-ending screed of moralish pronouncements, blah blah blah...

You just shut your pie hole. Everything you stand for is a recipe for enslavement, and rotten to its credulous, collectivist-worshiping, government-trusting core.

[Roy L]

You just shut your pie hole.

ROTFL!! It's encouraging to see you have finally realized you have no facts, no logic and no arguments to offer in support of your false and evil beliefs.

Everything you stand for is a recipe for enslavement, and rotten to its credulous, collectivist-worshiping, government-trusting core.

Which is enslavement: Pakistan or Hong Kong? The Philippines or Singapore? Which governments are more to be trusted, Steven, hmmmmm?

See how easily I prove that all your claims are the exact, diametric opposite of the truth?

"Collectivist" is just a meaningless cuss word for you; but it is rather odd that you who believe -- and imagine your readers would believe -- that Somalia is a better model of society than Slovenia (let alone Slovakia, Sweden, Singapore or Switzerland) should accuse me of credulity. Really, Steven? REALLY???

[heavenlyboy34]

[IMG][/IMG]

[Roy L]

That's a natural reaction to learning that you are a servant of the greatest evil in the history of the world, an evil that inflicts a couple of Holocausts worth of robbery, oppression, enslavement, misery, starvation, despair and death on innocent human beings EVERY YEAR.

I still strongly recommend that apologists for the Annual Holocausts of the Landless watch "Judgment at Nuremberg." It is very penetrating in its observations of how people manage to rationalize and justify even the most vicious, satanic evil. To paraphrase Spencer Tracy's final line in the movie:

"You knew. You knew the first time you refused to know facts which you knew to be accurate."

[Steven Douglas]

...robbery, oppression, enslavement, misery, starvation, despair and death on innocent human beings...

Silence, champion of all the above.

[heavenlyboy34]

That's a natural reaction to learning that you are a servant of the greatest evil in the history of the world, an evil that inflicts a couple of Holocausts worth of robbery, oppression, enslavement, misery, starvation, despair and death on innocent human beings EVERY YEAR.

I still strongly recommend that apologists for the Annual Holocausts of the Landless watch "Judgment at Nuremberg." It is very penetrating in its observations of how people manage to rationalize and justify even the most vicious, satanic evil. To paraphrase Spencer Tracy's final line in the movie:

"You knew. You knew the first time you refused to know facts which you knew to be accurate."

You really are a never-ending source of amusement and bullshit. You know well that the evils you so despise are State-caused, yet you keep railing against landowners in general.

[Roy L]

You know well that the evils you so despise are State-caused, yet you keep railing against landowners in general.

I know well that the harms of obesity are eating-caused. So, does it make more sense for me to oppose eating, or policies that subsidize purveyors of junk food?