Page 43 of 68 FirstFirst ... 33414243444553 ... LastLast
Results 1,261 to 1,290 of 2026

Thread: What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

  1. #1261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Nope. They don't get any benefit at all, because they have to pay landowners full market value for any such benefit. They don't get any NET benefit, only landowners do.
    More to follow, but just a quick snippet, to address your stranger-than-strange definition of "benefit", as somehow equating with "free", or "profit" (NET or otherwise), or precluding payment of any kind. Under your definition of benefit, as deduced from the context of your usage, from your argument:

    STEVEN: "I derive benefit from food I consume in a restaurant"

    ROY: Nope. [You] don't get any benefit at all, because [you] have to pay [the restaurant owners] full market value for any such benefit. [You] don't get any NET benefit, only [restaurant owners] do.
    Thus, I don't derive any NET "benefit" from restaurant food because I had to pay the restaurant owners full market value for the food I ate. Do you see how positively loopy and mentally retarded that sounds, Roy?

    I benefit from things that I pay for all the time, Roy, just as I can derive benefit from things (like air) that I would never pay anyone for. So do you. Get your definitions straight, you're clearly off the deep end here.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 12-20-2011 at 11:56 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #1262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Consider a large parcel of land zoned for high-density development in a major city. Only someone with the capital and the skills to build and operate a successful, appropriate high-density structure or structures would be able and willing to pay the LVT on it. Anyone else would just lose money.
    Yep, out of my league. And yours. There's another class of land that is within my league. And out of yours.

    Most substantial accumulations of wealth have been obtained primarily by pocketing publicly created land value rather than by any commensurate contribution to production, yes. The greater the accumulation of wealth, the more likely that it was primarily acquired by owning land titles or other privileges.
    You're talking old money banking interests, like Rockefeller and Morgan, not the average hyper-wealthy on the NYSE, or like Microsoft, Walmart, Geiko, AT&T et al.

    I am the one schooling you in economics, Steven, and I'll thank you to remember that.
    Keep schooling me in your whacky definitions, Roy. At the very least, my adaptation means you will be able to communicate with at least one normal person. That's a service to you, and I'll thank you to remember that.

    Then why are you rationalizing, justifying and defending a system that forces you to [pay twice for anything]?
    I'm not. I'm trying to abolish it, since in some cases, once was too much.

    How did they acquire a right to sole despotic dominion over others' rights to liberty, Steven? How?
    They don't. Individual land owners who aren't collecting rents, or gathering up more land than they themselves can put to good use, but are only minding their own business -- they aren't depriving anyone of any pretend "otherwise at liberty" right to anything, Roy. That's your covetous, self-contradictory and indefensible fantasy rationale, not mine. It's your biggest lie, the one you deep-throated long ago to the point where it can't be anything but true in your mind. But it's a lie nonetheless. When I use my land, I am not "otherwise at liberty" to use other lands unless I first give up using the land I'm on. And even if I am capable of working two or three pieces of land at once, there are limits to my abilities. You don't see that, Roy. You see all options as being equally plausible at all times, such that everyone is "otherwise at liberty" to use everything, and everybody owes and has a claim on everybody as a result.

    Screw your implausible "otherwise naturally at liberty" nonsense, Roy. That's Whack Land. Go fantasize about it from a straitjacket somewhere, and don't forget the football helmet.

    "I don't want the option of owning slaves outright (field or house)"
    Oh, yes you do. You just don't want to call it that. Every time you send out your productivity and wealth enslaving tentacles to anyone who is taking value from land you numbed-skullingly claim you are "otherwise at liberty to use", and claim "publicly created value" on behalf of all the covetous, lazy, parasitic troglodytes who weren't productive at all, and contributed nothing, you are claiming the "option of owning slaves outright". "Government, the public and nature" did not "provide" your would-be slaves with anything. Only nature did. You were the least but most presumptuous contributor, and deserve to be swept aside. Go get your own land. Go be a parasite on the land, like all other life on Earth, and stop being a cannibal, you human parasite.

    Yes, "historic" like Napoleon invading Russia. I find it frightening that people can so completely blind themselves to the dreadful lesson of Proposition 13 in California.

    Be careful what you wish for, Steven. The more low-property-tax horror stories like Prop 13 pile up, the closer the day when LVT is enacted.
    I never said anything about Prop 13, nor would I consider it a lesson in anything but how insane the California legislature is at getting around that nasty thing called "democracy", and the will of "something other than a corrupt, elitist oligarchy", regardless of its ideology. I know next door neighbors in California with properties of almost equal value. One pays $600 every six months based on the original loan, while the other, right next door, pays almost $8,000 every six months - based on newer appraisals and newer loans. So much for Prop 13, let alone a bankrupt California which should be anything but.

    Legislatively, California really is the land of absolutely corrupted fruits and nuts, with levels of complete insanity that may never be cured. California is no model for anything but insanity, and may well be ripe for nice, juicy LVT as yet another one of its failed collectivist, rent-seeking experiments. Would not surprise me at all.

    I talked about North Dakota, Roy, not California, and not "limits" on property taxes, but property taxes that are actually abolished altogether. That's a universe of difference, one I would not be careful at all to ask for. See the camel's nose in the tent (134 changes in the ND property tax code since 1978), and you CUT THE CAMEL'S NOSE OFF. You beat that camel's ass, and make it cry. You even kill it if you have to, and replace it with a more OBEDIENT camel. No more encroachments. No more Roys sniffing around with their insane machinations.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 12-21-2011 at 01:17 AM.

  4. #1263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    I would have had a natural exemption to live rent free were it not for that little pesky "rent" called property taxes.
    No, your "natural" exemption wouldn't have kept anyone else from using the land.
    Try again, Roy.
    If all that is so, WHY ARE YOU RATIONALIZING, JUSTIFYING AND DEFENDING A SYSTEM THAT HAS ROBBED YOU BLIND YOUR WHOLE LIFE, AND CONTINUES TO DO SO??
    Reality check to Roy: All it does is give one more revenue channel to my already hungry, hungry hippo of a government,
    No, it replaces unjust and harmful revenue channels with a just and beneficial one. Try to find a willingness to address the subject instead of just lying about what it is.
    which has nothing better to do with its time than dream up ways to spend other people's wealth and productivity.
    Real reality check to Steven: that is just juvenile "meeza hatesa gubmint" nonsense. Every mature adult is aware that in the absence of government, life is poor, nasty, brutish and short. See Somalia. It is remarkable how few of the shrieking know-nothings who rail against government have any desire whatever to go live in a place where there isn't one. The truth is, like all the other "meeza hatesa gubmint" fools, you want and need government to hold your hand and wipe your bottom for you, you just don't want to pay for it. So you squawl like little babies because mean ol' Mommy Gubmint holds your hand so tightly crossing the street.

    You make me sick.
    So no, I would not in any way pretend that a rent payment, even if that was all it was initially, would somehow permanently reduce taxes, let alone replace them.
    That just means you refuse to address the subject. LVT replaces other, unjust and harmful, taxes. That's what it IS. You just have to refuse to talk or even think about that, so you pretend, repeat, PRETEND that it would be in addition to other taxes. But that pretense is as stupid, irrelevant, fallacious and dishonest as pretending that our current taxes are all being levied in addition to LVT.
    Why would it, once my government realizes that it could have both,
    If it could have both, why doesn't it have LVT now, hmmmmm?

    Give your head a shake, and tell us what flavor of jellybeans fall out.
    and given that government will always try to take more than what the market can bear?
    It doesn't, as the lack of LVT proves. You are just spewing stupid, juvenile "meeza hatesa gubmint" nonsense.
    It could have my cake and eat it too, Roy.
    But even if it could, Steven, which it can't, that is irrelevant to the subject, as proved above. So you can either present some evidence that our current taxes are being levied in addition to LVT, or admit that you are just telling stupid, "meeza hatesa gubmint" lies. And you will not be presenting any evidence that our current taxes are being levied in addition to LVT, will you, Steven?
    That what governments do.
    No, that is just more of your stupid and juvenile "meeza hatesa gubmint" nonsense.

  5. #1264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    More to follow, but just a quick snippet, to address your stranger-than-strange definition of "benefit", as somehow equating with "free", or "profit" (NET or otherwise), or precluding payment of any kind.
    You again lie about what I plainly wrote.
    Under your definition of benefit, as deduced from the context of your usage, from your argument:

    Thus, I don't derive any NET "benefit" from restaurant food because I had to pay the restaurant owners full market value for the food I ate. Do you see how positively loopy and mentally retarded that sounds, Roy?
    There is no monopoly rent in restaurant food, because of competition. But land rent is the return to land AFTER the effect of competition. Because the supply of land is fixed, the landowner is able to charge a monopolistic price for everything government provides, leaving no consumer surplus.
    I benefit from things that I pay for all the time, Roy,
    Because competition enables you to obtain a consumer surplus. Absent competition, the vendor could charge you all you were willing to pay, leaving you no better off.
    just as I can derive benefit from things (like air) that I would never pay anyone for. So do you. Get your definitions straight, you're clearly off the deep end here.
    No, I just understand the economics of land rent. The fixity of land's supply means the monopoly price can't be competed down. It is counter-intuitive, but has been demonstrated mathematically in the Henry George Theorem.

  6. #1265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Real reality check to Steven: that is just juvenile "meeza hatesa gubmint" nonsense. Every mature adult is aware that in the absence of government, life is poor, nasty, brutish and short. See Somalia.
    Don't need to see Somalia. I don't hate government, Roy. I am not an anarchist - at least not in the contemporary, non-economic, sense of the word.

    It is remarkable how few of the shrieking know-nothings who rail against government have any desire whatever to go live in a place where there isn't one.
    Oh, I do want government, Roy, albeit a particular kind (like you and most others want theirs), if only to fill the void that the likes of you would try to fill in its absence.

    The truth is, like all the other "meeza hatesa gubmint" fools, you want and need government to hold your hand and wipe your bottom for you, you just don't want to pay for it. So you squawl like little babies because mean ol' Mommy Gubmint holds your hand so tightly crossing the street.
    Mistaking me for a progressive, Roy, or have you just bought into a progressives' lie as you give government credit where none was ever due?

    I am not the sniveling, sobbing, snot-sleeved brat who wants a gubmint to make all da' bad landowners stop depriving me of some imagined "naturally otherwise at liberty" deprivation. I am not haunted by that imaginary boogey-man, Roy, you are. I see people minding their own business and occupying land to the exclusion of others, including you and me, and don't feel that either of us are deprived in any way. Not in MOST cases. I would want to certify you for thinking otherwise, but I strongly support your right to be insane, so long as you don't try to inflict that insanity on others, or try to mess with those who really are minding their own business.

    When other kids are playing with toys that I don't get to play with, or sitting on a plot of sand in the box that I don't get to sit in, I don't sulk, pout or cry, let alone wail that someone else is "using up all my fun" that I would be "otherwise at liberty" to have if they weren't there using it all up. Why, that would be positively, sickeningly childish of me, Roy. Swat my little ass and slap some sense into me if that ever happens. Especially since I still see a lot of unused sand, and un-played with toys. Poor little deprived Roy, though, he can't see unused sand. He only sees the occupied sand, and he's absolutely beside himself, angry at each and every sand-squatting child and their abuse and deprivation of his Otherwise Coulda Privilege. Bwahhh! Why, this is Publicly Created Fun, after all! And even though Roy is no fun at all, he knows that he is one of the Public, by gosh and gee-golly! The other kids are all in spots that he would have otherwise been at liberty to squat down and play in himself, and NOT ONE OF THOSE EVIL SQUATTING SAND SPOT THIEVES WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR DEBT FOR WHAT THEY STOLE FROM HIM!

    Including me, as even I made him sick. Again.

    Now, if I catch a bully blocking access to the sandbox, or trying to shake kids down for their lunch or milk money to have any spot to sit in, by all means, call me over and I'll be happy to help kick his ass and make him stop - because that would be just wrong. And if I see you trying to play sandbox monitor, looking to collect lunch and milk money for redistribution to sandbox losers over The Most Fun Spots, based on all the Publicly Created Fun they're being deprived of...well, the other kids and I are just going to have to bite our lips. Because that obviously means that you are Very Special.

    That just means you refuse to address the subject. LVT replaces other, unjust and harmful, taxes.
    I am no defender of any taxes on individuals, Roy. We both at least agree that the others are harmful and destructive, if but to individuals with rights. That is not at issue for me, or between us. Replacing them with something else means nothing to me, regardless of your "personal" intent.

    That's what it IS. You just have to refuse to talk or even think about that, so you pretend, repeat, PRETEND that it would be in addition to other taxes. But that pretense is as stupid, irrelevant, fallacious and dishonest as pretending that our current taxes are all being levied in addition to LVT.

    If it could have both, why doesn't it have LVT now, hmmmmm?
    What, you don't think one agency might consider the power of unlimited deficit spending, along with the power to tax for that spending, enough? Even they are smarter than that, Roy. Now you give your own head a shake, and tell me what flavor jellybeans fall out, because it's pretty simple. They already deliberately taxed the State and non-Fed banks completely out of existence. Throwing a bone to local government, over which they have no control, helps to point taxing fingers away from the federal government, because it is "just another tax" ("Not by us! Don't look at us!"). Likewise with state taxes, which the Fed would never dream of co-opting, even if it could. Best to leave it as multi-layered as possible, with plenty of blame to spread around.

    That's why North Dakota's plan is so beautiful, Roy, as it takes that multi-layered, multi-finger-pointing mechanism away from the state. Want to tax? Do it. But do it evenly, universally, and all at once, without singling out landowners, encumbering private lands, and turning them all into renters in the process. Tax away, with no hidden or added layers, then suffer the political consequences when you alone abuse that power.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 12-21-2011 at 12:45 PM.

  7. #1266

    Default

    Let me go over a couple of reasons why I could never, in the absolute, be in favor of an LVT.

    MONOPOLY

    It is very difficult for any private enterprise to corner markets on land, or otherwise obtain a monopoly on landownership, which monopolies could serve to manipulate values and rents received. Even if this was a problem, antitrust laws could severely limit, if not prohibit, such attempts or practices, no differently than government could encourage such practices with protectionist laws that gave rise to the Robber Barons.

    Under an LVT, however, there is never a question on the monopolistic nature of land, since an LVT establishes a de facto monopoly to government up front. Government, and not the people themselves, regardless how government rationalizes their structure as being "of or by the people" -- becomes the sole owner of all lands. That We The People become the new landlords of all commerce, and the beneficiaries of all "publicly created rent value", might sound appealing on the surface - until you examine the actual dynamics involved, and attempt to reconcile the fundamental premises with the proposed solution.

    EVER-INCREASING VALUE INCENTIVE

    Under an LVT regime, the government is now operating under the same sets of market principles as rent-seeking landowners. An LVT gives powerful incentive for government to INCREASE property values ("publicly created value"), and therefore revenues, by whatever means are available. It looks as if government is a passive mediator of commerce -- the rent auctioneer which allows free competition for bids on the lands that major commerce wants to occupy.

    A closer examination shows that the government is anything but passive, whether such a thing is implied, explicitly claimed or not. In fact, a much closer examination shows that the "exemption" received by individuals is based on anything but free market fundamentals.

    Here is are excerpted examples of LVT proponents in Ontario, as implementation is discussed:

    George is actually the Henry George Rule, a little known but extremely powerful principle for running local governments. The principle is that local governments should try to maximize the property values. The value of a piece of property depends on the community and what the community does. The local government is doing its job when it makes the largest possible contribution to property values.

    There is one tricky point that you have to get clear to really understand George. The relevant value of land is price plus the value of all the future taxes. Why should taxes be counted as part of the value of the land? The cost of using a piece of land has two parts - the price of the land PLUS the tax bill. When there is a free market for land, sales only happen when the benefits are at least equal to the price plus the taxes.

    Never OK a project unless it increases the value of the land and future taxes by more than it costs.

    That is all there is to the Henry George Rule.

    Of course there is an equally important POSITIVE version of the rule:

    Always OK a project if it increases the value of the land and future taxes by more than it costs.
    An LVT government regime will work to increase value of lands in order to increase revenues. To this end, there are fundamentals to value that must be considered (and will be by government under any LVT).

    SCARCITY

    One of the MOST powerful fundamentals governing value is scarcity - natural or artificial - it is a governing principle of value which applies every bit as much to land as it does to hard and soft commodities.

    An owner of five extremely rare limited addition works of art can increase the value of her collection by publicly destroying four of the works (thus "taking them permanently off the market and out of circulation"). In some cases such a move can make the value of the surviving single piece worth many times more than the combined value of the previous five. Likewise, the amount of available land on Earth is FIXED, but that does not mean that it cannot be MORE FIXED. One very powerful way to increase the value of local lands, and thus the resultant LVT revenues, is to impose a legislatively artificial increase in the scarcity of land. Take all other land out of circulation, and you have increased the value of the "artificially available" remaining lands.

    In other words, we are immediately faced with a situation whereby it is in government's interests to keep land artificially scarce. So it is no wonder to me that nobody can call Roy L.'s attention to the fact that there is so much other unused land available. He wails and cries and moans as if it has all be gobbled up by rent-seeking parasites (ignore the fact that MOST land in America is occupied by landowners who are using a fraction of the land still available, and are not seeking rents of any kind).

    SCARCITY DETERMINED BY ZONING LAWS AND LAND THAT IS NOT IN USE

    One of the fundamental tenets of Georgist/Geolibertarian ideology is that a prohibition, or exclusion of the usage of lands from those who "would all be otherwise all be at liberty to use what nature has provided" must be compensated by land users to all those who are deprived. Any exclusion of people from opportunities for what nature has provided, without public compensation, is seen by Georgist ideologues as an evil, heinous and ultimately impoverishing. However, flagrant violations of this very tenet become fully conscionable, as an exception, so long as government is the perpetrator, given that government, unlike private landowners, is presumed to provide all the infrastructure that is so crucial to "publicly created value".

    Hence, LVT as "justly compensated through individual exemptions" only applies to land that people have been excluded from using which is now in use by others. It is NOT a compensation for land that is NOT USED, but from which everyone is also excluded from using -- by government. This land has no "publicly created value", because it has been taken off the market. Out of circulation, it exists only as a "reserve".

    According the Georgist ideology, nature has provided ALL LAND which we ALL are otherwise at liberty to use. That necessarily includes land which is "held in reserve" by government. This presents a wonderfully dubious and nasty Catch-22 for Roy's preferred economic plan for government. The reason: I can rightly claim that I am being deprived of the value and usage of lands that I am being excluded from, but which are not in use, but held in reserve. The government can then conveniently make the counterclaim that I am already being compensated by the resulting increased value of land that is already in use. How morbidly convenient that my "lack of use" of land "contributes" to value. It does NOTHING to increase my ability to use otherwise unused lands. The mere acceptance of an "exemption" is evidence that I have waived that as a right, or option.

    That one government controlled chicken and egg scenario would keep me denouncing LVT until doomsday, as a government/commerce elitist partnership and exploitation scheme.

    My personal interest would have NOTHING to do with Roy's wonderfully condensed "publicly created value" slopping trough - from a government-limited land pool made available. My interest would have EVERYTHING to do with value that I would otherwise receive by ignoring his idiotic fantasy city in a bubble, going off on my own, and claiming my right of usage of land that is not in use by anyone -- and fully competing with existing interests. The broader Georgist ideology is fully accepting of this, as all it means is that I would be required to pay an LVT on that land. The narrower governmental mechanisms, however, are another story altogether - with incentives of their own. It is no different than Keynesians and their "non-normative" theories versus the the Treasury and the Fed, with their HIGHLY normative applications.

    My use of "other unused" land could also be interpreted as a different kind of "deprivation" - to everyone even - given that it could result in a devaluation of existing lands in use. Can't have that, now can we? Falling prices? Falling Revenues? How can that be "good for the economy"? Naturally, I might even have to compensate for those losses, because the notion of "value stability" could be in place. So we are not looking at fair and equal libertarian access to land use, but only the VALUE=REVENUE side of the equation. But that is irrelevant, as it is not an option anyway, given that only government decides which lands are available for use, and how, when and why.

    The premise that we are all "naturally at liberty" to use all lands is not answered by the obvious solution as a matter of principle. Otherwise the aim would be to maximize the availability and usage of "all that nature provides". Instead, the publicly created "value" of lands is the only locus and the focus, as maximizing LAND VALUE=REVENUES becomes the primary thrust of a government that is dependent on LVT for its revenues.

    SUMMARY

    I see an enormous difference between the philosophical tenets behind Henry George's ideology, which talks about rights and liberties to land use for everyone, and his "theorem"*, along with proposed normative solutions, which uses these underlying ideological tenets as a rationale for land use rents as a means of government revenue. In other words, it is more of a mechanism to compensate people for their perceived land-use deprivations through money, but does not address the original ideological objection -- that they are being deprived of land use by an entity that has excluded or prohibited them from its use.

    Magic solution: "just compensation": payola for your loss of liberty.

    * It not a theorem, in the sense of something mathematically proved, except as a very loose correlation which George believed existed, only under certain ideal conditions, that aggregate spending by government will be equal to aggregate rent based on land value (land rent). between taxes and rents).

  8. #1267

    Default

    This is still going on? I thought Roy won already?
    Hail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with thee.
    Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
    Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death.
    Amen.

  9. #1268

    Default

    He did. I actually destroyed him a lot, but he ignored my declarations of victory and substituted them with even more powerful and numerous declarations of his own.

    Now we're just voices of protest howling from the grave (talk about final exclusive use and ownership without any ongoing compensation).

  10. #1269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    He did. I actually destroyed him a lot, but he ignored my declarations of victory and substituted them with even more powerful and numerous declarations of his own.

    Now we're just voices of protest howling from the grave (talk about final exclusive use and ownership without any ongoing compensation).
    I'm sure roy thinks your descendants should pay an LVT on your grave, even if you're dead you'd be denying him the liberty of using your grave site if he wanted t!
    Hail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with thee.
    Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
    Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death.
    Amen.

  11. #1270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    No, I just understand the economics of land rent. The fixity of land's supply means the monopoly price can't be competed down. It is counter-intuitive, but has been demonstrated mathematically in the Henry George Theorem.
    So your solution to the "rent seeker problem" is to create a huge rent seeker called the State (which is far more violent and tyrannical that the private "rent seeker")? The fixity of land's supply also allows us to create natural boundaries of order (land parcels and tracts) thus minimizing conflict, you know.
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 12-21-2011 at 07:28 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    [IMG]
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BMoF6luCUAIm1vO.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://asset.zcache.com/assets/graphics/s.gif[/IMG]
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  12. #1271
    Member helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Absorb thoroughly. Twist.
    Posts
    4,687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    This is still going on? I thought Roy won already?
    Roy has certainly declared his own victory far more often than everyone else combined. He has also declared his mental superiority, to not only those in the thread but to humanity in general, far more often than everyone else combined. He has also declared his own moral rectitude, and the corollary irredeemable evil of all others, far more often than everyone else combined.

    So yes, this means of course that he is definitely the most winsome of us all, he is definitely the brainiest of us all, and he is definitely the holiest of us all. We all ought to bow down next to our computer desks and worship at his potential virtual presence any time we enter this thread. Roy, you are totally right about everything! Props to you!
    Download hundreds of Ron Paul songs: by Torrent or Dropbox

  13. #1272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    The fixity of land's supply also allows us to create natural boundaries of order (land parcels and tracts) thus minimizing conflict, you know.
    The actual "fixity" of land's supply is natural on the whole, but COMPLETELY artificial on the government level. It would be just as artificial, if not more, under an LVT as it is under our current regime. They don't give a spider's fart about rights to land use - only values extracted from rents. Their proposed dystopian solutions speak much louder than their utopian pretend ideals used as a rationale.

  14. #1273
    Member helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Absorb thoroughly. Twist.
    Posts
    4,687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    So your solution to the "rent seeker problem" is to create a huge rent seeker called the State (which is far more violent and tyrannical that the private "rent seeker")? The fixity of land's supply also allows us to create natural boundaries of order (land parcels and tracts) thus minimizing conflict, you know.
    There is no fixity of supply in any meaningful sense. There is no need to concede that point. It is land's existence in time and space that allows the creation of boundaries. But there is an infinite amount of land out there, and the supply of usable (i.e. actual, or perhaps we could say meaningful) land is rapidly increasing.

    Roy L. is the Smartest Man On Earth(TM), and right about Everything!!!
    Download hundreds of Ron Paul songs: by Torrent or Dropbox

  15. #1274

    Default

    Query-could cyberspace, websites, etc be deemed "real property"/"land" in an LVT regime? Why or why not? People do, after all, seek "rent" for websites (domain names and so forth). We even treat websites like "places" in colloquial language.
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 12-21-2011 at 07:55 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    [IMG]
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BMoF6luCUAIm1vO.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://asset.zcache.com/assets/graphics/s.gif[/IMG]
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  16. #1275
    Member helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Absorb thoroughly. Twist.
    Posts
    4,687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Query-could cyberspace, websites, etc be deemed "real property"/"land" in an LVT regime? Why or why not? People do, after all, seek "rent" for websites (domain names and so forth).
    The important thing to realize from a practical point of view is that under Roy's version of LVT regime, nothing could stop them from being LVTed, other than the force of Roy's personality. A hegemonic state will, of course, do whatever its managers please. "Land" is whatever we say it is, mundane. Says so here in Section XXVI, paragraph 3, of the LVT Act of 2012. Submit and obey.

    oops, almost forgot: Roy is right -- we need LVT! Stop the massacre! Millions are dying from lack of LVT! Give the State all the power!

    "Give me your tired, your poor, your hungry, yearning for L.V.T."
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 12-21-2011 at 08:32 PM.
    Download hundreds of Ron Paul songs: by Torrent or Dropbox

  17. #1276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    You're talking old money banking interests, like Rockefeller and Morgan, not the average hyper-wealthy on the NYSE, or like Microsoft, Walmart, Geiko, AT&T et al.
    No, Steven. You again prove your ignorance:

    Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
    billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
    the USA:

    http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/sec...secretsqa.html

    Almost all the wealth of really wealthy people is not earned by actual
    productive contributions, but is obtained by making oneself the beneficiary
    of unjust privileges. These privileges are mainly private ownership of
    land and other natural resources such as minerals and broadcast
    spectrum, IP monopoly privileges, the privilege of creating bank
    deposits ex nihilo, and of course, the "business" of manipulating and
    dealing in these privileges.

    I've included the source of these billionaires' fortunes after their names,
    and added some explanation. Notice how many specify "real estate."

    1 Tim Blixseth: timberland, real estate
    -- i.e., pure landowner privilege
    Notice Blixseth's slightly too revealing response to Q 15:
    Say you have $100,000 to invest: What do you do with it?
    A: "Raw, undeveloped land out in front of the path of development."

    2 Eli Broad: "investments" -- i.e., dealing in privileges

    3 John Catsimatidis: oil, real estate, supermarkets
    -- i.e., ownership of natural resources

    4 Ken Fisher: money management -- dealing in privileges

    5 B. Tom Golisano: Paychex -- Well! Actual productive work!

    6 Harold Hamm: Continental Resources -- ownership of natural resources

    7 Michael Heisley: manufacturing -- Productive work again!

    8 Kenneth Hendricks: building supplies
    -- Another one! Three producers out of eight so far!

    9 Joseph Jamail, Jr.: lawsuits
    -- hmmmm... transferring money from defendants to plaintiffs is not
    productive

    10 Ted Lerner: real estate -- ahhh, back to privilege...

    11 Ronald Perelman: leveraged buyouts
    -- "How to Destroy Productive Capacity for Fun and Profit"

    12 Jorge Perez: condos -- i.e., landowning
    Slightly too revealing answer to Q 10: When was the last evening that
    hadn't been scheduled in advance? What did you do?
    A: "Just today, one of the wealthiest families in Mexico came to Miami
    and wanted to see me to see if we could develop their extensive land
    holdings. Had a very productive and enjoyable three-hour lunch."

    13 Richard Rainwater: real estate, energy, insurance
    -- mainly natural resource ownership

    14 Phil Ruffin: casinos, real estate
    -- gambling monopoly privilege and landowner privilege

    15 O. Bruton Smith: Speedway Motorsports -- oops! Actual production!

    16 James Sorenson: medical devices, real estate
    -- patent privileges and landowner privilege

    17 A Alfred Taubman: real estate -- landowner privilege

    18 Kenny Trout: Excel Communications -- MLM scam, not productive

    19 Donald Trump: real estate
    -- landowner privilege (especially property tax abatements)

    20 Sanford Weill: Citigroup -- bank seignorage privilege

    21 Mort Zuckerman: real estate, media
    -- landownership and copyright privileges


    Well, there you have it, folks. Just four of the 21 "self-made"
    billionaires (out of the 400 on Forbes's list!) actually made the bulk
    of their money through actual productive contributions. The rest were
    all rent collectors or scammers of one stripe or another. The
    productivity ratio is certainly worse in the full list of 400, many of
    whom inherited or obtained their wealth by even less savory means.

    I'm not. I'm trying to abolish it, since in some cases, once was too much.
    Nope. Everything you have said here has been to sustain and preserve it, and now with your cretinous support for abolition of property taxes in North Dakota, even to intensify it. There is only one possible way for the productive to avoid paying both taxes to government to fund desired services and infrastructure and land rent to landowners for access to the services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for: recovery of publicly created land value to fund public expenditures, of which LVT is the relevant form. If you oppose LVT, you are helping to maintain the double payment for government system as a matter of immutable economic law. No matter how much you may protest or even believe that you are not supporting that system, that is the actual effect of opposing LVT: that you must pay for government twice. Nothing can ever change that, Steven. You just have to somehow find a willingness to know that fact.
    They don't.
    They don't have a right, true. But they do exercise despotic dominion over others' right. That is just a fact of objective physical reality.
    Individual land owners who aren't collecting rents, or gathering up more land than they themselves can put to good use, but are only minding their own business -- they aren't depriving anyone of any pretend "otherwise at liberty" right to anything, Roy.
    No, that's just self-evidently and indisputably another stupid, vicious, evil lie from you, Steven. Others would otherwise be at liberty to use the land. That is just an indisputable fact of objective physical reality. You just have to refuse to know that fact, because you are trying to rationalize and justify the annual murders of millions of innocent human beings. Nothing you say can ever change that. You are guilty of supporting and sustaining the greatest evil in the history of the world, which inflicts two Holocausts per year on innocent human beings. That is just pure evil.
    That's your covetous,
    One of the most evil things that has ever existed, or can ever exist, is the foul, filthy, viciously evil creature that accuses those who oppose injustice of envy for its beneficiaries. That accusation is the pure, distilled essence of naked, smirking evil.
    self-contradictory and indefensible fantasy rationale, not mine.
    No, that's just more stupid, vicious, evil lies from you, Steven. You have never been able to identify a single self-contradiction in anything I have said, and you never will.
    It's your biggest lie,
    It is not a lie, Steven, and you know it, so stop lying. It is a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality. There is nothing you can ever say or do that can ever change that fact.
    the one you deep-throated long ago to the point where it can't be anything but true in your mind. But it's a lie nonetheless.
    No, Steven. You are LYING, and you KNOW you are lying. All people are naturally at liberty to use all land. If the landowner did not initiate forcible, coercive, violent physical aggression against others, or have government doing it for him, all people would STILL be at liberty to use all land, just as our hunter-gatherer ancestors were. That is just an indisputable fact of objective physical reality. You just have to refuse to know it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.
    When I use my land, I am not "otherwise at liberty" to use other lands unless I first give up using the land I'm on.
    No, that's just another stupid, evil lie from you, Steven. There is no way to rationalize and justify landowner privilege other than by telling stupid, evil lies, so you always have to tell stupid, evil lies. ALWAYS.

    It is self-evident and indisputable that when you use "your" land to live on, you are still otherwise at liberty to use other land for other purposes, such as for growing crops, grazing livestock, mining gold, harvesting timber, trapping fur animals, or any number of other purposes. You just decided that you had better deliberately lie about that, and so you lied about it.

    Furthermore, when you use "your" land, it is not YOUR liberty to use that land that you are depriving others of. It's THEIR liberty to do so, liberty they would otherwise be at liberty to exercise. Hello? Did you really imagine that your pathetic, puerile attempt to change the subject from removal of the landless's liberty to exercise of the landowner's liberty was relevant? REALLY???

    BWAHAHAHHAHAAAA!!
    And even if I am capable of working two or three pieces of land at once, there are limits to my abilities. You don't see that, Roy.
    ROTFL!! Oh, I see it all right, Steven. I see that it is astoundingly stupid and irrelevant, and it is the only "argument" you have. Does it really matter to Friday that Crusoe might be capable of using two or three other islands as well as the one he is on, when Crusoe points his musket at him and orders him to get back in the water? REALLY??
    You see all options as being equally plausible at all times,
    No, that is just a stupid strawman, and an irrelevancy.
    such that everyone is "otherwise at liberty" to use everything, and everybody owes and has a claim on everybody as a result.
    Oh, stop lying. Compensation is only owed for DEPRIVATIONS forcibly imposed on others. It is only the landowner's thieving that incurs an obligation to those he robs of their liberty.
    Screw your implausible "otherwise naturally at liberty" nonsense, Roy. That's Whack Land.
    It is an indisputable fact of objective physical reality, and you know it.
    Oh, yes you do. You just don't want to call it that.
    No, Steven, you just always have to lie about what I have plainly written. ALWAYS.
    Every time you send out your productivity and wealth enslaving tentacles to anyone who is taking value from land you numbed-skullingly claim you are "otherwise at liberty to use",
    It is indisputable that I would otherwise be at liberty to use it, and so would everyone else. All your stupid, evil lies can never change that fact, Steven.
    and claim "publicly created value"
    The unimproved value of land is indisputably publicly created. You simply realize that you have to lie about that, and so you lie about it. You ALWAYS have to lie, Steven. ALWAYS. Once you decide to rationalize and justify the greatest evil in the history of the world, you have no choice but to lie.
    on behalf of all the covetous, lazy, parasitic troglodytes who weren't productive at all, and contributed nothing,
    You have just perfectly described the landowner:

    "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

    "The most comfortable, but also the most unproductive, way for a capitalist to increase his fortune is to put all his monies in sites and await that point in time when a society, hungering for land, has to pay his price." -- Andrew Carnegie

    So, Steven, you now have exactly two choices: you will either provide evidence that those who do not own land never do any productive work and contribute nothing, or you will admit that you are nothing but a vicious, evil, lying sack of $#!+. Failure to do the former will constitute doing the latter. And you will not be doing the former.
    you are claiming the "option of owning slaves outright".
    No, that is self-evidently just another stupid, evil lie from you, Steven. It is the landowner who compels others to labor for his unearned profit, as his slaves. I only require him to make just compensation for what he forcibly takes from society. He need not labor at all. If he just leaves others alone, I will leave him alone. It is YOU who demands he have a privilege of extorting labor from landless slaves.
    "Government, the public and nature" did not "provide" your would-be slaves with anything. Only nature did.
    No, that is just another stupid, evil lie from you, Steven. Government provided the landowner with access to all the services and infrastructure it provides, and the community provided him with access to all the opportunities and amenities it provides, at his location. Stop lying, Steven.
    You were the least but most presumptuous contributor, and deserve to be swept aside.
    Speaking of being presumptuous, on what basis do you make such idiotic and disgraceful claims?
    Go get your own land.
    "Go get your own slaves."
    Go be a parasite on the land, like all other life on Earth,
    There is no such thing as a parasite on the land. You are just trying to evade the fact that the landowner is a parasite on the productive. But I will not let you evade it.
    and stop being a cannibal, you human parasite.
    It is the landowner who is the cannibal and parasite, and you know it, as proved by your inability to answer The Question:

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

    You cannot answer The Question. You will never be able to answer it. And neither will anyone else, ever.

    The funniest part is, you lie and lie and lie to rationalize and justify the landowner's extortion racket, while claiming to be the producer who is paying his extortion demands!
    I never said anything about Prop 13,
    I know you didn't. You have to evade the fact that reducing property taxes has destroyed California. DESTROYED it.
    nor would I consider it a lesson in anything but how insane the California legislature is at getting around that nasty thing called "democracy", and the will of "something other than a corrupt, elitist oligarchy", regardless of its ideology.
    How is Prop 13 not democracy in action?
    I know next door neighbors in California with properties of almost equal value. One pays $600 every six months based on the original loan, while the other, right next door, pays almost $8,000 every six months - based on newer appraisals and newer loans. So much for Prop 13, let alone a bankrupt California which should be anything but.
    The injustice you observe is the direct result of opposition to property taxes. What you don't understand is that the greater injustice of the two is the $600 payment.
    California is no model for anything but insanity, and may well be ripe for nice, juicy LVT as yet another one of its failed collectivist, rent-seeking experiments. Would not surprise me at all.
    It would ASTOUND me. CA is doomed. Prop 13 killed it. But LVT would save it.
    I talked about North Dakota, Roy, not California, and not "limits" on property taxes, but property taxes that are actually abolished altogether. That's a universe of difference, one I would not be careful at all to ask for.
    If North Dakota abolishes property taxes, the only thing that could prevent it from being destroyed even faster than Prop 13 destroyed CA would be oil and gas royalties -- which are of course just another form of resource rent recovery.

  18. #1277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    The important thing to realize from a practical point of view is that under Roy's version of LVT regime, nothing could stop them from being LVTed, other than the force of Roy's personality.
    That is of course, and inevitably, a stupid lie with no basis in fact.
    A hegemonic state will, of course, do whatever its managers please.
    Puerile "meeza hatesa gubmint" nonsense.
    "Land" is whatever we say it is, mundane.
    Stupid, irrelevant garbage.
    Says so here in Section XXVI, paragraph 3, of the LVT Act of 2012.
    Idiotic fabrication.
    Submit and obey.
    Cretinous bloviation.
    Roy is right -- we need LVT!
    Pure, absolute and eternal truth.
    Stop the massacre! Millions are dying from lack of LVT!
    Horrifying but true.
    Give the State all the power!
    Stupid, irrelevant garbage.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your hungry, yearning for L.V.T."
    You must somehow prevent yourself from knowing the fact that most immigrants to the USA have come to escape the inevitable harmful economic and social effects of inadequately taxed private landowning in Europe, Asia and Latin America.

  19. #1278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Query-could cyberspace, websites, etc be deemed "real property"/"land" in an LVT regime? Why or why not? People do, after all, seek "rent" for websites (domain names and so forth). We even treat websites like "places" in colloquial language.
    Did nature provide it? Is its value publicly created, especially by government spending?

    You didn't think very hard, did you?

  20. #1279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    All people are naturally at liberty to use all land.
    Cool beans. Almost sounds like "all land" would actually available for use under your Georgist fantasy regime. It would not be, of course. Not EVER. That is but one of your dirty little LIES. And what little land remains, out of "all land" -- that's nothing but an oppressive web of artificial valuation spawned from bogus counter-party claims, as everybody has a "natural liberty right" to every piece of artificially available land only.

    Here you go, Roy. Here is what I picture when you talk about "all land", as if that's what you really, truly meant:



    Yeah. "All" that nice fat land that "all people" are naturally at liberty to use. Why, just look at a map of the entire country, and you'll see how vast it is. And that really is what you are "naturally at liberty to use". But that doesn't give you an actual right to use it. The Georgist ideology says that you are - in theory at least - but no LVT implementation would ever allow for it.

    The actual land must be confined, of course, since condensing all available land would artificially drive up its value, which would increase revenues even as it squeezes everyone. Oh, we would be "compensated" alright - but not justly compensated. Never justly, since no exemption that is provided by controlled access to LIMITED LANDS could ever begin to compensate for a denial of real access to ALL LANDS.

    Yep, 'tis the season, but not for fruitcake. Very few people like fruitcake, Roy. Bon apetit. You can eat your LVT fruitcake here, or elsewhere, but mostly, you will be dining alone.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 12-22-2011 at 12:15 AM.

  21. #1280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Did nature provide it? Is its value publicly created, especially by government spending?

    You didn't think very hard, did you?
    Nature created 1's and 0's, yes. Nature invented silicon, light, glass, electricity, etc. Man just organized these materials into specific patters. Just like man organizes wild tracts into parcels and so forth. Space is space, whether virtual or literal. My bits of data on a hard drive prevent your bits of data occupying the same space. I thought through this harder than you did (which isn't too hard).
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 12-22-2011 at 12:24 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    [IMG]
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BMoF6luCUAIm1vO.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://asset.zcache.com/assets/graphics/s.gif[/IMG]
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  22. #1281

    Default

    "How, exactly, is production aided by the landowner's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?"
    ANSWER: Firstly, production doesn't need to be "aided" by anything. It is a false question, with some equally false governing assumptions.

    Screw your conflation of "government, the community and nature" as some kind of joint "providers". That's mushy-fuzzy talk, and a borrowing of prestige and value that is not weighted properly, let alone deserved. I'm glad for what nature provided, grateful for a community for its division of labor so that we can freely trade and share in the fruits of each others' efforts - and I want a government PROVIDED BY THE COMMUNITY - for the sole purpose of defending all of this from all enemies, foreign and domestic. We can even HIRE IT to create some infrastructure - which the community will pay for (aka "provide to ourselves"), as it always has, no credit to "government" needed.

    From my lens and not yours, government is, and always should be, the LEAST and most humble contributor, "the community" is comprised of sovereign individuals with both land and property rights of their own - so you can kiss all their asses. And landowners own their lands outright, fee simple, no property taxes or rents involved, with no obligations or rights to land belonging to other sovereigns, any more than British Columbia has any rightful claim on Washington State.

    And Henry George's theorem - I might be able to earn some extra cash by printing that, along with his face, onto some toilet paper, because I think some of my fellow sovereigns just might get a kick out of it, and might be willing to part with a pinch of gold or silver dust for a roll or two.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 12-22-2011 at 12:41 AM.

  23. #1282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    ANSWER: Firstly, production doesn't need to be "aided" by anything.
    No, that's indisputably just another stupid lie from you, Steven. It is self-evidently absurd. It is an idiotic, cretinous lie, and you know it. It can only be by aiding production that anyone ever earns a share of production. It is only aiding production that can ever possibly make one productive, as you so implausibly claim to be. You know this, Steven. You KNOW it.
    It is a false question, with some equally false governing assumptions.
    No, Steven, that is just another stupid lie from you. There is no false question, no false governing assumptions, and you are just lying again.
    Screw your conflation of "government, the community and nature" as some kind of joint "providers".
    You have no facts, no logic, no arguments of any kind to offer, so all you can do is howl in protest and run in circles, biting your hindquarters. It is indisputable that the unimproved value of land arises solely from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at each land site.
    That's mushy-fuzzy talk,
    No, that is just another stupid lie from you, and you know it. It in fact clearly and precisely identifies a concrete and indisputable fact of objective physical reality.
    and a borrowing of prestige and value that is not weighted properly, let alone deserved.
    Gibberish.
    From my lens and not yours, government is, and always should be, the LEAST and most humble contributor,
    But of course, as you know, that is just another stupid lie from you. Without government-provided transportation infrastructure such as the road network, most land would be almost worthless, as there would be no convenient way to get to it. You know this. Of course you do. You have merely realized that you have to lie about it and refuse to know it, as it proves that your beliefs are false and evil. Similarly, without government police officers, courts, etc. to keep the peace, land would be worthless because there would be no way to make a significant profit by using it: any surplus would have to be spent on defense, as under feudalism.
    "the community" is comprised of sovereign individuals with both land and property rights of their own - so you can kiss all their asses.
    Thank you for proving that you have no facts, logic or arguments to offer.
    And landowners own their lands outright, fee simple, no property taxes or rents involved,
    That is self-evidently and indisputably a lie. Rents are inherent in the market, and fee simple titles are not outright ownership, and are subject to property taxes. You just always have to lie.
    with no obligations or rights to land belonging to other sovereigns, any more than British Columbia has any rightful claim on Washington State.
    We have already established that there is no way land can possibly rightfully come to "belong" to anyone.
    And Henry George's theorem - I might be able to earn some extra cash by printing that, along with his face, onto some toilet paper, because I think some of my fellow sovereigns just might get a kick out of it, and might be willing to part with a pinch of gold or silver dust for a roll or two.
    You heap disgrace upon yourself, just like every other apologist for landowner privilege who has ever lived, or will ever live.

  24. #1283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    There is no fixity of supply in any meaningful sense.
    The supply of land is fixed in the only meaningful sense: the economic sense. "Supply" is an economic term.
    There is no need to concede that point.
    Right. It is also quite possible to evade it, dismiss it, ignore it, and lie about it. It just isn't possible to refute it.
    It is land's existence in time and space that allows the creation of boundaries. But there is an infinite amount of land out there, and the supply of usable (i.e. actual, or perhaps we could say meaningful) land is rapidly increasing.
    Ah, that must explain why the price is increasing so fast...

    Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: it doesn't. Such a mystery.

    To you, that is.
    Roy L. is the Smartest Man On Earth(TM), and right about Everything!!!
    You heap disgrace upon yourself.
    Last edited by Roy L; 12-22-2011 at 01:06 AM.

  25. #1284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Nature created 1's and 0's, yes.
    That is of course false and stupid.
    Nature invented silicon, light, glass, electricity, etc. Man just organized these materials into specific patters.
    Patterns nature DID NOT invent.
    Just like man organizes wild tracts into parcels and so forth.
    No, that's just a stupid lie from you. Man does not organize wild tracts of land into parcels. He DIVIDES wild tracts of land into parcels for the purpose of gaining unearned wealth by violating his fellows' rights to use them.
    Space is space, whether virtual or literal.
    And land is land, and products of labor are not, no matter how many times you lie that they are.
    My bits of data on a hard drive prevent your bits of data occupying the same space.
    None of which nature provided, none of which get their value from government or the community.
    I thought through this harder than you did (which isn't too hard).
    No, of course you didn't. You just spewed some stupid garbage without thinking at all, other than the mental effort required to concoct the stupidest possible lies.

  26. #1285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    No, that's indisputably just another stupid lie from you, Steven. It is self-evidently absurd. It is an idiotic, cretinous lie, and you know it. You know this, Steven. You KNOW it. No, Steven, that is just another stupid lie from you. There is no false question, no false governing assumptions, and you are just lying again. You have no facts, no logic, no arguments of any kind to offer, so all you can do is howl in protest and run in circles, biting your hindquarters. No, that is just another stupid lie from you, and you know it. It in fact clearly and precisely identifies a concrete and indisputable fact of objective physical reality. Gibberish. But of course, as you know, that is just another stupid lie from you. You know this. Of course you do. You have merely realized that you have to lie about it and refuse to know it, as it proves that your beliefs are false and evil. Thank you for proving that you have no facts, logic or arguments to offer. That is self-evidently and indisputably a lie. You just always have to lie. You heap disgrace upon yourself, just like every other apologist for landowner privilege who has ever lived, or will ever live.
    Wow! hehehe

    That's where you remain forever trapped, Roy. You are incapable of responding except from your own George-centric premises - the center of your only known universe. Everything else is so much stupidity, absurdity, idiotically cretinous lies, with no facts, no logic, no arguments of any kind...to you.

    I think pretty much everyone else understood exactly my arguments, my logic, the truths behind them, just as I understood theirs (and yours) without a requirement for agreement or disagreement on anyone's part. We are still capable of rational discussion. But how do you respond? By dismissing everyone and every thing not aligned with your religiously ideological fervor as being "like every other apologist for landowner privilege who has ever lived, or will ever live."

    If you offer a gift of moral pronouncements, but your intended recipient doesn't accept, to whom then does the gift belong?

    Stew in it, Roy. You can keep all the deadweight loss of your artificial land scarcity tax to yourself.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 12-22-2011 at 11:57 AM.

  27. #1286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    You can keep all the deadweight loss of your artificial land scarcity tax to yourself.
    What do you mean by this? One of the notable advantages of the LVT is that there is practically no deadweight loss to it!

    Standard economic theory suggests that a land value tax would be extremely efficient – unlike other taxes, it does not reduce economic productivity. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman agreed that Henry George's land value tax is potentially beneficial for society since, unlike other taxes, it would not impose an excess burden on economic activity (leading to "deadweight loss"). A replacement of other more distortionary taxes with a land value tax would thus improve economic welfare.
    Foldvary, Fred E. "Geo-Rent: A Plea to Public Economists". Econ Journal Watch (April 2005)

    In fact almost any tax measure will distort the economy from the path or process that would have prevailed in its absence (land value taxes are a notable exception).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_burden_of_taxation
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  28. #1287

    Default

    LOL! Is Roy's rep bar red?
    Hail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with thee.
    Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
    Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death.
    Amen.

  29. #1288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    LOL! Is Roy's rep bar red?
    yep.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    [IMG]
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BMoF6luCUAIm1vO.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://asset.zcache.com/assets/graphics/s.gif[/IMG]
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  30. #1289

    Default

    what is this whacked out thread?

    127 pages of schizoid mental masturbation?
    Those Who Do Not Move, Do Not Notice Their Chains.

  31. #1290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    That is of course false and stupid.
    No it isn't. 1's and 0's are abstract concepts that exist (and always existed) in nature. Humans simply gave them names. The Romans used numbers like I and II (they had no concept of zero, but the same principle applies). When I type a 0 or 1 here, it's just a symbol-part of a larger mathematical theorem. Likewise, if people like yourself hadn't wasted your time trying to rationalize this theory that "land ownership is theft" and so forth, you could have gotten offline and found a way to prove this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    No, of course you didn't. You just spewed some stupid garbage without thinking at all, other than the mental effort required to concoct the stupidest possible lies.
    Incorrect. But even if it were correct, my "garbage" is rational. Your garbage is a desperate attempt to "disprove" what we know works in the real world. You can only come up with a few examples in history in which your LVT scheme works. The vast majority of societies don't accept it because it's impractical in typical complex societies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    And land is land, and products of labor are not, no matter how many times you lie that they are.
    And all space is space. What lie? I never denied that land doesn't exist-it's also scarce. You're really grasping at straws. The rest of what you wrote is just variations on these nonsense themes, so I won't waste time addressing them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    [IMG]
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BMoF6luCUAIm1vO.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://asset.zcache.com/assets/graphics/s.gif[/IMG]
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

Page 43 of 68 FirstFirst ... 33414243444553 ... LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •