What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Roy L]

The greatest evil in the history of the world is The State.

Laughable, childish mewling. The contrast of Slovenia with Somalia proves you wrong. Why can't you ever remember that?

Humanity never saw such ultra-violent crime as the State commits before the moment that States arose.

Of course it did. The ultra-violent crime was just committed piecemeal, one torture-murder at a time, and was not recorded because before the state arose, no one ever learned to write. And if the state had not arisen, no one would ever have learned to write.

The State even gives itself the authority to prevent people from owning land, you know.

Nope; no one can possibly own land in the first place without the state's help. Never happened, never can.

It can also throw people off of land at will, unlike landowners.

You know that landowners demand a privilege of depriving others of their liberty -- "throwing them off of land" -- at will. Of course you do.

[heavenlyboy34]

Laughable, childish mewling. The contrast of Slovenia with Somalia proves you wrong. Why can't you ever remember that?

Of course it did. The ultra-violent crime was just committed piecemeal, one torture-murder at a time, and was not recorded because before the state arose, no one ever learned to write. And if the state had not arisen, no one would ever have learned to write.

Nope; no one can possibly own land in the first place without the state's help. Never happened, never can.

You know that landowners demand a privilege of depriving others of their liberty -- "throwing them off of land" -- at will. Of course you do.

WRONG!!!! Somalia has never invaded another country/land and murdered thousands of people. Your desperation is getting the better of you. No Stateless society has the means to commit mass atrocities. More than 90 MILLION people were killed by various State forces during WWII alone. The entire population of Somalia is only ~9 million. You are either just joking or INCREDIBLY ignorant. Get yourself a copy of "Democracy: The God That Failed", by Hans Herman-Hoppe.

There was no such means for this kind of mass murder before the rise of States. Bringing up the subject of state sponsored land ownership is just a red herring, but it isn't true anyway.

All that book-learnin' you did fails you again. I suggest again that you demand a refund from whomever mal-educated you so.

[Steven Douglas]

You know that landowners demand a privilege of depriving others of their liberty -- "throwing them off of land" -- at will. Of course you do.

It is a recognized and fully defensible right of ownership in this country, not a privilege, Roy. That means that a landowner throwing someone off their land would be closer to "depriving others of their confinement" than anything as they get tossed out into the open, because, once again, people don't have a "liberty right" to trespass on what the law recognizes as privately owned land. That "meeza gubmint" thing - which you mistakenly think we all hate, but really don't - protects us from that. And you. For now, anyway, and with every bit as much force as you would like exercised by the same "gubmint" to see it all work in reverse.

So until We Da You-know-who decide to enact your kooky landownership rights abolishment scheme, we are, by definition, a "propertarian" regime. And your blah blah that compares it to Somalia, and equates landownership to slavery while blaming it for all the bloodshed, poverty, and other ills in the world, all sounds like tinfoil hat wearing gooberness to most people - including your relentless followup screeds about it only being because of agreeing with lying, evil apologists and such. But we see your NYAH! and raise you two NYAH's!

Go ahead and propose your geoist anti-propertarian nonsense until your face turns blue, but don't expect anyone to engage in Georgist-centered language with you, as you argue from your own premises, as if they were already recognized and manifested. Until the day we "recognize" what your fuzzy mind thinks ought to be obvious to everyone, the reality is that we now "recognize" (to the degree that we do) a thing called "property rights". Not privileges. Rights. And since you don't have a recognized "liberty right" claim of access to all land, let alone all that nature provided, regardless of your moral-ish reasoning, you are not being deprived of anything but a personal normative on your part - not a "right", just one of Roy's "oughta be's" - which I am more than happy to deprive you of. So, on the contrary, Roy, only the one being thrown off the land is treading on recognized rights, as they have no legally "recognized" rights to trespass, steal, or otherwise deprive others of what the law, not Roy, recognizes is exclusively theirs -- as a matter of right.

Capisci?

[heavenlyboy34]

It is a recognized and fully defensible right of ownership, not a privilege, Roy. That means that a landowner throwing someone off their land would be closer to "depriving others of their confinement" than anything, because, once again, people don't have the "liberty right" to trespass on what the law recognizes as privately owned land. That "meeza gubmint" thing - which you mistakenly think we all hate, but really don't - protects us from you. For now, anyway.

So until We Da The-know-who decide to enact your kooky landownership rights abolishment scheme, we are, by definition, a "propertarian" regime. And your blah blah that compares it to somalia, and equates it to slavery while blaming it for all the bloodshed, poverty, and other ills in the world, all sounds like tinfoil hat gooberness to most people - including your relentless screeds about it only being because of lying, evil apologists and such. But we see your NYAH! and raise you two NYAH's!

Go ahead and propose your geoist anti-propertarian nonsense until your face turns blue, but don't expect anyone to engage in Georgist-centered language with you, as you argue from your own premises, as if they were already recognized and manifested. Until the day we "recognize" what your fuzzy mind thinks ought to be obvious to everyone, the reality is that we now "recognize" (to the degree that we do) a thing called "property rights". Not privileges. Rights. And since you don't have a recognized "liberty right" claim of access to all land, let alone all that nature provided, regardless of your moral-ish reasoning, you are not being deprived of anything but a personal normative on your part - not a "right", just one of Roy's "oughta be's" - which I am more than happy to deprive him of. So, on the contrary, Roy, it is only the one being thrown off the land that is treading on recognized rights, as they have no legally "recognized" rights to trespass steal, or otherwise deprive others of what the law recognizes is theirs -- as a matter of right.

Capisci?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Steven Douglas again. Well done. Roy, as usual, confuses "is" and "ought".

[redbluepill]

You do know that the term "enemies" is figurative, don't you, and that the animosity is toward the issue more than the person? And note also that nobody is calling for banning or censorship over this. Try that on a far left or right site.

In reality, we would only be true "enemies" if we actually went to war over the issue. Of course, come to think of it, I don't think that either of us would be opposed to actually going to war over it. I know Roy wouldn't. He implied as much early on in the thread. I know I definitely wouldn't.

All that to say, we can pull up our big girl panties and disagree as vehemently and as passionately as we want to. It's all part of public debate and discourse. If it got truly ugly, the mods could intervene at any time, it's what they're there for.

My point is that I highly doubt you speak this passionately against the sales tax or income tax. National Sales Tax threads never get this heated. And no, don't blame Roy when he has to hold his own against continuous attacks from numerous posters who dont do their own research.

[Roy L]

It is a recognized and fully defensible right of ownership in this country, not a privilege, Roy.

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

That means that a landowner throwing someone off their land would be closer to "depriving others of their confinement" than anything as they get tossed out into the open,

The "open" that is owned by other landowners....?

That's clearly just another stupid lie from you, Steven.

because, once again, people don't have a "liberty right" to trespass on what the law recognizes as privately owned land.

Wrong AGAIN. That is nothing but question begging. The law is merely an attempt to formalize and codify rights, it does not and cannot confer rights. Slavery proved that. Why can't you ever remember that, Steven? Why can't you ever remember that as all your "arguments" would equally have justified slavery, they are known in advance to be fallacious, with no further refutation necessary?

That "meeza gubmint" thing - which you mistakenly think we all hate, but really don't - protects us from that.

Oh, I know you don't really hate government, Steven. You rely on government to enforce your privileges for you, and to violate others' rights for your profit. You just hate PAYING for the profits government shovels into your pockets, and demand that your victims be forced to pay for them instead, so you can get something for nothing, like a greedy little piggy.

And you. For now, anyway, and with every bit as much force as you would like exercised by the same "gubmint" to see it all work in reverse.

Wrong again. Government has to exercise a lot more force to enforce your privileges for you than it would need to exercise to establish liberty and justice.

So until We Da You-know-who decide to enact your kooky landownership rights abolishment scheme, we are, by definition, a "propertarian" regime.

And getting more and more so, true. You are going to see where that leads, Steven. But you are not going to be honest enough with yourself to know how it got there.

And your blah blah that compares it to Somalia,

I never claimed propertarian tyranny was similar to anarcho-capitalism, stop lying.

and equates landownership to slavery while blaming it for all the bloodshed, poverty, and other ills in the world,

Not all, just most.

all sounds like tinfoil hat wearing gooberness to most people - including your relentless followup screeds about it only being because of agreeing with lying, evil apologists and such. But we see your NYAH! and raise you two NYAH's!

Content = 0.

Go ahead and propose your geoist anti-propertarian nonsense until your face turns blue, but don't expect anyone to engage in Georgist-centered language with you, as you argue from your own premises, as if they were already recognized and manifested.

I simply identify indisputable facts and their inescapable logical implications.

Until the day we "recognize" what your fuzzy mind thinks ought to be obvious to everyone, the reality is that we now "recognize" (to the degree that we do) a thing called "property rights". Not privileges. Rights.

<yawn> As the "arguments" adduced to rationalize property "rights" in land are the same as those used to rationalize slavery, we already know that they are not rights at all, but merely unjust privileges.

And since you don't have a recognized "liberty right" claim of access to all land, let alone all that nature provided, regardless of your moral-ish reasoning, you are not being deprived of anything but a personal normative on your part

That "argument" would also justify slavery, and is therefore known in advance to be fallacious.

- not a "right", just one of Roy's "oughta be's" - which I am more than happy to deprive you of.

I am aware that you desire to violate others' rights without making just compensation.

So, on the contrary, Roy, only the one being thrown off the land is treading on recognized rights, as they have no legally "recognized" rights to trespass, steal, or otherwise deprive others of what the law, not Roy, recognizes is exclusively theirs -- as a matter of right.

Law does not define rights. Slavery proved that. Why can't you ever remember that, Steven?

[Roy L]

WRONG!!!! Somalia has never invaded another country/land and murdered thousands of people.

?? Somalia's murders are mostly of Somalis by Somalis, of course -- though hundreds of foreigners have been murdered by Somali pirates.

Your desperation is getting the better of you. No Stateless society has the means to commit mass atrocities.

That's what I said. The atrocities of stateless societies are of necessity piecemeal, not mass. That doesn't mean they are fewer.

More than 90 MILLION people were killed by various State forces during WWII alone.

Yes, and the reason there were ever 90 million people there to kill in the first place -- and billions NOT to be killed, whom you conveniently ignore -- was that states prevented 9 BILLION piecemeal murders.

The entire population of Somalia is only ~9 million. You are either just joking or INCREDIBLY ignorant.

<sigh> You could with equal "logic" point to the vast amount of wealth states take from producers by taxation and shriek, "Private thieves only take a tiny fraction of that amount!" -- conveniently ignoring the fact that without the state to keep the peace and PREVENT private theft from producers, 99% of that wealth -- including almost all the wealth producers get to KEEP -- would never and could never have existed in the first place. The superficiality of your "thinking" is breathtaking.

Get yourself a copy of "Democracy: The God That Failed", by Hans Herman-Hoppe.

ROTFL!!! Hans-Hermann Hoppe (get the spelling right, dude) is one of the stupidest, most dishonest, irrational and evil lying sacks of $#!+ who ever lived. Virtually every sentence he writes is a lie. He is the original high priest of the propertarian religion, who demands that millions of human sacrifices be laid on the altar of his Great God Property EVERY YEAR. Anyone who would cite that foul, vile, despicable, disgusting, loathsome, anti-rational, anti-scientific, anti-economic, anti-human, anti-truth, anti-liberty, anti-justice, lying sack of rotten pig $#!+ is simply confessing that they are totally and infinitely evil.

There was no such means for this kind of mass murder before the rise of States.

True: there could never have been that many people in the first place, as the poverty and sky-high murder rate typical of stateless societies would have kept the population down -- as Somalia's population would be if it were not getting so much aid from societies WITH states. You just have to ignore that fact.

Bringing up the subject of state sponsored land ownership is just a red herring, but it isn't true anyway.

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

All that book-learnin' you did fails you again. I suggest again that you demand a refund from whomever mal-educated you so.

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

ROTFL!!!!!

[helmuth_hubener]

My point is that I highly doubt you speak this passionately against the sales tax or income tax. National Sales Tax threads never get this heated. And no, don't blame Roy when he has to hold his own against continuous attacks from numerous posters who dont do their own research.

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

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

[Roy L]

To paraphrase one of the commonly recurringly repeated exchanges in this thread:

Evil Parasite: "Beating up people is not an effective way of dealing with others."

Roy L.: "Actually, beating people up has proven itself historically to be a very effective way of dealing with people. Mature adults realize this. This is just more 'meeza hate beating up people' puerile nonsense."

Evil Parasite: Silence (while thinking "Is it even worth it to reply to this guy? Nah.")

Right, because the Evil Parasite needs to evade the fact that beating people up is a method of dealing with others that is so effective, we have to take extraordinary measures -- including beating up the people that are most keen to rely on beating up others -- to stop it from being overused, and ending with all of us constantly getting beaten up.

The destroyer has such an enormous cost advantage over the producer that no significant wealth production can take place unless the destroyers are prevented from using that cost advantage to extort all the wealth from the producers. That is why states exist. Learn it, or remain ignorant and irrelevant permanently.

Roy L.: "How's that not-beating-people-up thing going for ya in Somalia? Point, set, match. Thou Hast Been Utterly Destroyed."

Evil Parasite: "Uh huh."

Yep.

[heavenlyboy34]

Why do you think I'm a libertarian? Any system can be corrupted and controlled to benefit the elitists. Break up the the US into hundreds of city states so everyone can pick the society that best suits their world view. I will choose the one that best suits mine.

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