"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.
No, you are telling evil lies again, Steven. Here's more of your "real liberty and justice":You're the one who calls real liberty and justice evil, while redefining oppressiveness and perpetual injustice as "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 always lie about what I have plainly written?Why contradict yourself?
It is indisputably true. If it were not, you could show how someone is compelled to labor under LVT, and you can't.Why say "No one is compelled to labor under LVT...", when that is patently untrue.
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.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, Steven it is never there at all. You are just flatly lying about what I have written in plain English, as usual.The compulsion to labor is very much there at all times.
All apologists for landowner privilege must lie. Perpetually.Perpetually.
No one said economics was magic, Steven. Although, it might as well be for all you understand of it.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.
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.
?? "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?No, Roy, once I pay other landowners for the land (not "rent" but actual purchase payments),
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.I get a fixed quantity of land in return.
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.Much better than any mess of pottage exemption. That is very much the point.
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.If I wanted to rent from a landowner, I could. But if I want no rent, I can buy just as well.
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.Then the only pernicious rent-seeking bastards violating the principle of landownership as a right
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.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.
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?
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.Everything about your philosophy is based on collectivism, Roy.
The basis for it is the individual right to liberty -- which can only be secured collectively. Stop lying.And it is not the individual exemption that is collectivized - only the basis for it.
It is fact."non-exclusive use" - what a macabre joke, if it wasn't a lie in reality.
Of course: pitching tents can compromise others' rights of non-exclusive use.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.
As above.Are you hungry? See some game you want for dinner? Sorry, that's controlled too.
As above. You just want to call your intended exclusive uses non-exclusive.Want to build a fire to cook that game so you don't get sick? Sorry, that's controlled too.
Except by comparison with everything else that has ever been tried...Pretty much proven incompetent in that respect...
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.Yes, and your normative, your premise, Roy, is in the narrowing the definition of "valid", such that landownership is not part of property ownership.
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.That's your narrowing view of "valid", and also the proper role of government through your geolibertarian collectivist lens, and completely debatable.
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.
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.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.
Every objection you have offered to LVT, or ever will offer, is objectively wrong.
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.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 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.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.
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.Easy - it didn't turn out to be wrong. It was never the problem.
And you're the one who wants to keep them enslaved and impoverished. Right.You're the one pointing out that others are condemned to pay rents that keep them enslaved and impoverished.
Putting scare quotes around clear, simple English words to try to impute a meaning that isn't there is despicable behavior, Steven. Despicable.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"
<sigh> 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.be made available to everyone who has an exemption
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.(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?
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.Fat chance of that ever happening, now or under an LVT).
If landowning is anyone's right, it cannot be everyone's right. That fact is inherent in the fixity of land's supply.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.
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.Yesss... isn't it funny how that works, Roy?
<yawn> "Meeza hatesa gubmint." The entire "content" of your “philosophy”...Propose in one hand, then let reality kick in, as the government shits in the other, and see which one fills up fastest!
As above.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.
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.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?
<yawn> 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.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.
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.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.
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.That is precisely what individual rights are for, Roy - so that we can cater to our own whims.
Yes, you indisputably do. See your own words, immediately above.I don't.
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.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.
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.I did read it. What an evil, nasty, collectivist rationale for trampling on individual rights.
No, they are indisputably rights. You just do not know what rights are or why they exist.There is nothing special about that Roy, and those aren't "rights" you are describing. Those are privileges masquerading as rights.
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.I find the appeal to "society", with all its winners and losers under ANY regime,
It is your pretense that society does not exist that is nauseating, naive and infantile. And dishonest.nauseating, naive, and even infantile.
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.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.
No, I am not. Many, many people, including some of the greatest minds who have ever lived, have agreed with me.You are the only one who is saying that the existence of a landlord is only good if it is a public landlord.
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.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.
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:You have only asserted, Roy, and repeated it in circles, ad nauseum. You have PROVED nothing whatsoever,
"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.
<sigh> 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.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.
Such a "philosophy" is just evil, vicious filth.
<yawn> 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?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.
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."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.
There is no such thing as "individual reality." Reality is objective, not subjective.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,
Why do individual rights matter? Blank out.no recognition that individual rights are the only rights that matter in any society.
No, that is merely a confession of moral and intellectual bankruptcy.Sure it is.
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.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.
Content = 0 (other than your usual sociopathic blather)Again with "society", and "its" prosperity. Collectivist. (sorry for the spray, I spit sometimes when I use that cuss word)
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, 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.
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.Yeah, private landowning can eliminate the entire notion of "providing compensation".
If you ever figure out what you intended to say there, and can translate it into English, let me know.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".
No, you were "arguing" that LVT in place would be something other than what it is.I was arguing as if LVT was already in place, Roy.
No landowners in Hong Kong, remember?No landowners in that fairy tale world, remember?
Thanks for conceding the whole debate.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.
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 this 'liberty' is a 'right', and that such a 'deprivation' is 'unjust' - is NOT A FACT.
Yes, and I have explained that the normative - factual dichotomy is fallacious.That is a normative assertion on your part,
Law is an attempt to codify rights. It is not a source of rights.which has yet to be codified, recognized as an actual right, and consequent deprivation, according to law.
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.And yet you persist in arguing, asserting disingenuously and quite dishonestly from your premises, as if they were already one in the same.