No. Were you under an erroneous impression that you were saying something relevant?Originally Posted by ConCap
No. Were you under an erroneous impression that you were saying something relevant?
No. This is an illusion that will disappear when the parasitic State has drained the life out of the productive class. It is an unsustainable model. Already the EBT cards are managed by JP Morgan and other bankers.
My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RPThat which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
ooops. wires crossed.
Last edited by ConCap; 02-01-2012 at 02:51 PM.
Objectivism>Individualism>Constitutionalism>Capita lism>Freedom
CONCAP
Nonpartisan Constitutional Capitalist-20yr retired combat vet. and Oath Keeper. http://cnmdesign.com/page67.php
It is the parasitic privileged -- especially landowning -- class that is draining the life out of the productive class, with the state's help. Your delusions are monumental.
True, as the destruction of many civilizations at the hands of landowner privilege attests.It is an unsustainable model.
More parasites. Obviously.Already the EBT cards are managed by JP Morgan and other bankers.
No. If you want to exclude others from a plot of land, whether to build a house on it or for any other purpose, make just compensation to them for removing their liberty, as I am willing to do to keep my house where it is.
Who gets this tax you pay to set your home on if no one owns the land to begin with?
Are you just renting it?
Objectivism>Individualism>Constitutionalism>Capita lism>Freedom
CONCAP
Nonpartisan Constitutional Capitalist-20yr retired combat vet. and Oath Keeper. http://cnmdesign.com/page67.php
The answer is not no, nor is it a matter of compensation directly to Roy only, as he is not the only party of interest. Ask Roy how that would work if he said no, but you insisted. Is there a mechanism whereby you could force him to move? According to Roy, the answer is a resounding yes.No. If you want to exclude others from a plot of land, whether to build a house on it or for any other purpose, make just compensation to them for removing their liberty, as I am willing to do to keep my house where it is.
If his house occupies the land you want to build yours on, the landholding rental is as good as up for auction ... perpetually. If you are willing to pay the landlord/state more rent than the existing homeowner/not-landowner, as the highest bidder, you're in like Flynn. You would have to compensate Roy for the house he built - but that valuation will be up to an appraiser, not Roy. And as the owner of the real estate improvements, Roy cannot attach any sentimental value to his property. He cannot create an immovable architectural masterpiece, or work of art, for example, and set his own reserve price for that.
Under Roy's LVT, the state's financial interests are tied directly to land value only, and nothing else. Since it has NO interest in your improvements, it also has zero interest in protecting your notions of what those improvements are worth to you - only market value - what the market is willing to pay, as determined by an appraiser.
Once Roy is "justly compensated" (based on an appraisal, regardless of Roy's feelings on whether it was just or not, which is irrelevant), Roy is then free, or "at liberty" to go build elsewhere, on land the rents of which he can afford to pay, over and above his individual land exemption amount, whatever that is. To Roy, that is "just", because so long as there is someone willing to pay more to occupy the land he occupies, his staying on that land for less would represent a deprivation to others without just compensation. Of course, if no higher bidder showed up to displace him, the amount he currently pays would be considered just. It is the presence of a higher bidder alone that drives the land rent upward. So if Roy doesn't want to be displaced, it is in his interests to keep a Very Low Profile, and hope that the location of his home does not attract too much attention.
Roy was lying through his keyboard teeth when he said no. The question is not whether or not you can force him to move. Only how much it would take. Your house is perpetually considered to be on the market - up for sale. It's not a question of whether you could do this to Roy, but only of your ability to price him out of his own home, coupled with his inability to compete with you, all sentimental "willingness to keep his house where it is" notwithstanding, and irrelevant.
Anyway I could get a readers digest on this thread?
Okay. "Landowners are thieves. I'm right, and you who disagree with me are entirely wrong-no matter how much overwhelming evidence to the contrary of my opinion exists. There can be no other way," said Roy L.
My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RPThat which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
You don't need one.
When you get down to the fundamentals of Roy's worldview, right and wrong is based on whatever has "evolved" to be right or wrong...which is the same thing as saying that nothing can ultimately be right or wrong. For all of Roy's railing against "evil", he doesn't have a worldview that provides for anything to be objectively "evil".
Nothing. To. See. Here. This is the most pointless thread on the internet.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
