What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[eduardo89]

I just finished reading every single post on this thread and, wow, I feel like shooting myself in the head. This Roy fellow is a blithering idiot if he really believes he has a right to use all land he wishes and that landowning deprives him on that liberty. The biggest flaw in his "plan" (if you can call such an idiocy that) is that he wants to transfer the landlord status from a private individual to a government who can only intervene into the market and coerce people through the threat of force. It's the most ridiculous idea I've ever seen. I swear Fire11 had more intelligent posts on this forum!

Oh Dear God, Tim. Why would you put yourself through that agony?!

[Roy L]

This Roy fellow is a blithering idiot if he really believes he has a right to use all land he wishes and that landowning deprives him on that liberty.

I am aware that my right to liberty has been forcibly removed without just compensation.

It is self-evident and indisputable that before land was appropriated as private property, all were at liberty to use it, though not exclusively. It is self-evident and indisputable that were it not for landowners (or government acting on behalf of landowners) initiating force against us, we would all still be at liberty to use it.

You will never offer any sort of facts or logic to dispute these facts, because they are self-evident and indisputable. You will just, like all the apologists for landowner privilege in this thread or anywhere else, ignore, dismiss, lie about, and refuse to know these self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.

The biggest flaw in his "plan" (if you can call such an idiocy that) is that he wants to transfer the landlord status from a private individual to a government who can only intervene into the market and coerce people through the threat of force.

No, that's just a lie on your part. It is the private landowner who coerces people through the threat of force, as I already proved to you by the examples of the bandit in the pass, Dirtowner Harry and Thirsty, and Robinson Crusoe and Friday. There is no way to allocate exclusive use of land but by force. It is inherently impossible, as all are naturally at liberty to use it. It is government's specific, legitimate role to administer possession and use of land in order to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. The only question is, will government discharge that function faithfully, or will it simply violate the people's rights for the unearned profit of a greedy, idle, privileged, parasitic minority of landowners? The latter is the current system. The former is the system I advocate.

It's the most ridiculous idea I've ever seen.

It has been endorsed by several Nobel laureates in economics. They understand economics. You do not. Simple.

I swear Fire11 had more intelligent posts on this forum!

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Too bad it could not have been a reasoned or informed one.

[Roy L]

This is how i currently see it: would confiscation through government force actually be necessary?

If you want anyone to have secure, exclusive use of land, which is necessary for any condition of society above the nomadic herding level, force is necessary. There is simply no way around it. The only choice is between force to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all, or force to violate those rights. Private landowning is the latter choice.

If a landlord refused to pay the ground rent then the government simply has to stop enforcing his privilege and it becomes open for others to settle and use.

OK, but what if others are willing to pay the rent to use it exclusively? What if the "landlord" also decides to use other land that others are paying the rent to use exclusively?

If the landlord threatened or enacted force against new settlers then that is something that can be handled in the courts.

How could that solve anything if the courts couldn't use force?

I'm sure theres flaws to that idea but thats the conclusion I've made.

The problem arises when people -- whether they call themselves owners of the land or whatever -- insist on using land that others are paying rent to use exclusively. Can you see that it doesn't matter if the trespasser claims to own that land or not? There is no way to allocate exclusive use of land but by initiating force, and no way to make that initiation of force consistent with securing and reconciling the equal rights of all (which only government is competent to do) but through just compensation for the deprivations of liberty thus imposed.

[Steven Douglas]

^^^ Rinse and Repeat scriptural references, from that nuttier-than-nutty nutshell, encapsulated by the a priori axiomatic, highly dogmatic tenets of an economic religion, regurgitated and recycled, practically by rote, by a fanatic who argues from his own circular premises, in a tightly enclosed loop, ad nauseam.

And take heed that each scriptural reference of Roy's be quoted precisely, or you will have an "Uh-oh! V-E-R-N Vern!" Rain Man loose cannon on your hands.

To engage fully with Roy, one must first descend into the tiny dungeon that is his mind - a proverbial steel trap-cum-maze which lets in nothing "impure", and resists all evil, and already knows all that need be known. If a fact is not already in Roy's mind, it does not exist. Facts which do exist have already been categorized and sorted according to a tightly interlocking set of dogmatic assumptions. The only way to know what is self-evident or indisputable is to climb into an impossibly small, dark prison space, and view everything from Roy's own personal, highly distorted lens. Whatever Roy does not agree with is a lie, or your refusal to know facts as he knows them, or is otherwise irrelevant gibberish, not worthy of a response.

Like Karl Marx, Henry George was pioneer of a sad, dark, highly distorted and logically fallacious half-understandings and whole misunderstandings about the relationship between humans, governments, and the environs of their functions and dysfunctions. Like mainstream Keynesian-spawned theories and proponents, the simplest of concepts at the individual level are completely abandoned, rendered irrelevant to all the Master Aggregate Reckoning and Aggregate Solutions, with highly complex and convoluted reasoning which forms the ad hoc fabric of a net of misery which cast onto the whole -- for its own good.

[Roy L]

^^^ Rinse and Repeat scriptural references, from that nuttier-than-nutty nutshell, encapsulated by the a priori axiomatic, highly dogmatic tenets of an economic religion, regurgitated and recycled, practically by rote, by a fanatic who argues from his own circular premises, in a tightly enclosed loop, ad nauseam.

And take heed that each scriptural reference of Roy's be quoted precisely, or you will have an "Uh-oh! V-E-R-N Vern!" Rain Man loose cannon on your hands.

To engage fully with Roy, one must first descend into the tiny dungeon that is his mind - a proverbial steel trap-cum-maze which lets in nothing "impure", and resists all evil, and already knows all that need be known. If a fact is not already in Roy's mind, it does not exist. Facts which do exist have already been categorized and sorted according to a tightly interlocking set of dogmatic assumptions. The only way to know what is self-evident or indisputable is to climb into an impossibly small, dark prison space, and view everything from Roy's own personal, highly distorted lens. Whatever Roy does not agree with is a lie, or your refusal to know facts as he knows them, or is otherwise irrelevant gibberish, not worthy of a response.

Like Karl Marx, Henry George was pioneer of a sad, dark, highly distorted and logically fallacious half-understandings and whole misunderstandings about the relationship between humans, governments, and the environs of their functions and dysfunctions. Like mainstream Keynesian-spawned theories and proponents, the simplest of concepts at the individual level are completely abandoned, rendered irrelevant to all the Master Aggregate Reckoning and Aggregate Solutions, with highly complex and convoluted reasoning which forms the ad hoc fabric of a net of misery which cast onto the whole -- for its own good.

Irrelevant gibberish not worthy of a response.

[helmuth_hubener]

Irrelevant gibberish not worthy of a response.

Oh, are we only responding to things worthy of reponse now? If that is the rule thus thread could have been over long ago.

[eduardo89]

Oh, are we only responding to things worthy of reponse now? If that is the rule thus thread could have been over long ago.

QFT

[Roy L]

Oh, are we only responding to things worthy of reponse now? If that is the rule thus thread could have been over long ago.

Indeed. I have responded to hundreds of stupid and dishonest posts in this thread that were not worthy of responses, but did so to demonstrate the fallacious, absurd and dishonest nature of all anti-LVT spew for the enlightenment of readers. Steven's latest spew of idiotic vomitus does not even serve that purpose, as it identifies no facts, essays no arguments, and does not even make any meaningful claims. It's just insensate shrieking.

[eduardo89]

Indeed. I have responded to hundreds of stupid and dishonest posts in this thread that were not worthy of responses, but did so to demonstrate the fallacious, absurd and dishonest nature of all anti-LVT spew for the enlightenment of readers. Steven's latest spew of idiotic vomitus does not even serve that purpose, as it identifies no facts, essays no arguments, and does not even make any meaningful claims. It's just insensate shrieking.

I don't think that's what Helmuth was saying...

[heavenlyboy34]

Oi, vey, this is still alive? FRANKENTHREAD!!!

[eduardo89]

Oi, vey, this is still alive? FRANKENTHREAD!!!

Roy is very persistent.

[redbluepill]

I begin to get inklings that you may never have actually read Henry George to apparently be unaware of his view on this, which he made so abundantly clear! So, satisfy my curiosity: what books by Henry George have you, redbluepill, actually read?

Anyway, here's one quote, pulled almost at random and with the greatest of ease, by myself, hardly a George scholar:

Deduction and induction have brought us to the same
truth: Unequal ownership of land causes unequal distribution
of wealth. And because unequal ownership of land
is inseperable from the recognition of individual property
in land, it necessarily follows that there is only one
remedy for the unjust distribution of wealth:

We must make land common property.

But this is a truth that will arouse the most bitter
antagonism, given the present state of society. It must
fight its way, inch by inch.

Henry George obviously, blatantly, for his entire sorry career, advocated for the nationalization of land. He just thought that nationalizing it in the traditional way would be politically impractical, and thus his idea for a confiscatory land tax, to remove all benefits of ownership, and thus accomplish the same thing by different means, means which he felt would be more palatable to the British political establishment.

LOL! You are becoming desperate Helmuth. There is nothing in that quote that says the government must nationalize or confiscate the land. Try again.

[redbluepill]

Redbluepill's plan is to massively centralize landlord status, grabbing it away from millions of independent landlords and bestowing it instead on thousands of political entities which divvy up North America.

Simply false.

Redbluepill's plan is approximately ten thousand times better than Roy L.'s, but they're both pretty lousy. My millions of landlords are a thousand times superior to his thousands of landlords.

?? The LVT would actually help the poor acquire land. It would reduce the artificially high price of land, increase wages by ensuring increased productivity, and reduce the 'need' of other nonproductive taxes.

Decentralize! Dehegemonize! Detyrannize! These are the cries of the freedom-lover. The Georgists cry for the opposite. And they wonder why we just can't see the common ground.

Most georgists want to decentralize. You should know that by now.

[Sola_Fide]

Roy is very persistent.

Why wouldn't he be? He's fighting an entire universe of ownership. The all-pervasive evil of this sickening idea of ownership is everywhere...how could you sleep at night???


In an interesting side note, John Robbins at a homeschooling conference one time said that you shouldn't teach your children to share. He said it gives them the wrong idea about ownership. Instead, you should teach your children to barter for their time with toys and such things. Then it becomes a voluntary transaction instead of an issue of force.

I thought that was really cool. I posted the audio somewhere on these boards.

[eduardo89]

Why wouldn't he be? He's fighting an entire universe of ownership. The all-pervasive evil of this sickening idea of ownership is everywhere...how could you sleep at night???


In an interesting side note, John Robbins at a homeschooling conference one time said that you shouldn't teach your children to share. He said it gives them the wrong idea about ownership. Instead, you should teach your children to barter for their time with toys and such things. Then it becomes a voluntary transaction instead of an issue of force.

I thought that was really cool. I posted the audio somewhere on these boards.

That is a really interesting idea. I'm going to look into it. Thanks!

[heavenlyboy34]

Indeed. I have responded to hundreds of stupid and dishonest posts in this thread that were not worthy of responses, but did so to demonstrate the fallacious, absurd and dishonest nature of all anti-LVT spew for the enlightenment of readers. Steven's latest spew of idiotic vomitus does not even serve that purpose, as it identifies no facts, essays no arguments, and does not even make any meaningful claims. It's just insensate shrieking.

You keep crying about fallacies, but you are committing one in doing this. The fallacy fallacy. That is, "Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious".
Therefore, C is false. ".

[heavenlyboy34]

Why wouldn't he be? He's fighting an entire universe of ownership. The all-pervasive evil of this sickening idea of ownership is everywhere...how could you sleep at night???


In an interesting side note, John Robbins at a homeschooling conference one time said that you shouldn't teach your children to share. He said it gives them the wrong idea about ownership. Instead, you should teach your children to barter for their time with toys and such things. Then it becomes a voluntary transaction instead of an issue of force.

I thought that was really cool. I posted the audio somewhere on these boards.

You are correct, but Roy's argument is specifically about the "evil" of land ownership. I suspect you could easily write an exposition disputing that. You're a very learned fellow.

[Sola_Fide]

That is a really interesting idea. I'm going to look into it. Thanks!

Here's the audio of it:

Teaching Economics From The Bible, John Robbins
http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/T...hn_Robbins.mp3

[eduardo89]

Here's the audio of it:

Teaching Economics From The Bible, John Robbins
http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/T...hn_Robbins.mp3

Thanks! +rep (even if you're a Calvinist )

[redbluepill]

If you want anyone to have secure, exclusive use of land, which is necessary for any condition of society above the nomadic herding level, force is necessary. There is simply no way around it. The only choice is between force to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all, or force to violate those rights. Private landowning is the latter choice.

Agreed.

OK, but what if others are willing to pay the rent to use it exclusively? What if the "landlord" also decides to use other land that others are paying the rent to use exclusively?

In cases where the land is being paid for through LVT I understand government stepping in to enforce that privilege. Otherwise there would be no incentive for people to pay it.

[heavenlyboy34]

In cases where the land is being paid for through LVT I understand government stepping in to enforce that privilege. Otherwise there would be no incentive for people to pay it.

What about Roy's earlier claim (I don't recall the post number now) that geoism is compatible with stateless society (anarchism)?

[redbluepill]

What about Roy's earlier claim (I don't recall the post number now) that geoism is compatible with stateless society (anarchism)?

I would argue that it is certainly compatible with a stateless society.

Fred Foldvary discussed the very issue here: http://www.anti-state.com/geo/foldvary1.html

Anarchist geoism

In a libertarian or anarchist world, some people might be unaffiliated anarcho-capitalists, contracting with various firms for services. But if we look at markets today, we see instead contractual communities. We see condominiums, homeowner associations, cooperatives, and neighborhood associations. For temporary lodging, folks stay in hotels, and stores get lumped into shopping centers. Historically, human beings have preferred to live and work in communities. Competition induces efficiency, and private communities tend to be financed from the rentals of sites and facilities, since this is the most efficient source of funding. Henry George recognized that site rents are the most efficient way to finance community goods because it is a fee paid for benefits, paying back that value added by those benefits. Private communities today such as hotels and condominiums use geoist financing. Unfortunately, governments do not.

Geoist communities would join together in leagues and associations to provide services that are more efficient on a large scale, such as defense, if needed. The voting and financing would be bottom up. The local communities would elect representatives, and provide finances, and would be able to secede when they felt association was no longer in their interest.

[redbluepill]

I know Helmuth already answered this question but I was curious what the rest of you guys thought about this issue: How much labor is required to declare land as 'personal property' and how much land can actually be claimed? Does the first man to take a fish from the ocean get to declare the entire ocean his property?

[heavenlyboy34]

I would argue that it is certainly compatible with a stateless society.

Fred Foldvary discussed the very issue here: http://www.anti-state.com/geo/foldvary1.html

Anarchist geoism

In a libertarian or anarchist world, some people might be unaffiliated anarcho-capitalists, contracting with various firms for services. But if we look at markets today, we see instead contractual communities. We see condominiums, homeowner associations, cooperatives, and neighborhood associations. For temporary lodging, folks stay in hotels, and stores get lumped into shopping centers. Historically, human beings have preferred to live and work in communities. Competition induces efficiency, and private communities tend to be financed from the rentals of sites and facilities, since this is the most efficient source of funding. Henry George recognized that site rents are the most efficient way to finance community goods because it is a fee paid for benefits, paying back that value added by those benefits. Private communities today such as hotels and condominiums use geoist financing. Unfortunately, governments do not.

Geoist communities would join together in leagues and associations to provide services that are more efficient on a large scale, such as defense, if needed. The voting and financing would be bottom up. The local communities would elect representatives, and provide finances, and would be able to secede when they felt association was no longer in their interest.

But if that were to happen, it would no longer be truly stateless. There would be a group with a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force-the standard definition of a State. These "communities" are just small States by a different name.

[redbluepill]

But if that were to happen, it would no longer be truly stateless. There would be a group with a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force-the standard definition of a State. These "communities" are just small States by a different name.

From my understanding, in an anarchist society people would belong to the community through a contract. It would be no more a 'state' than any other non-government institutions.

[eduardo89]

From my understanding, in an anarchist society people would belong to the community through a contract. It would be no more a 'state' than any other non-government institutions.

How is that any different to citizenship that we have now. In that anarchist society, you can't be "stateless".

[Roy L]

You keep crying about fallacies, but you are committing one in doing this. The fallacy fallacy. That is, "Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious".
Therefore, C is false. ".

I made no such argument. I have demonstrated that not just one but ALL "arguments" against LVT that have been offered in this thread have been fallacious, absurd and/or dishonest. Usually all three. If I had only refuted one anti-LVT fallacy, that would indeed not be conclusive. But when ALL anti-LVT arguments have been refuted, and no credible refutation has been offered for ANY pro-LVT argument, the conclusion has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

[eduardo89]

I honestly don't get what Roy is doing here on this forum. He's not a Ron Paul supporter and he only ever posts on this thread.

[Roy L]

Why wouldn't he be? He's fighting an entire universe of ownership.

No, such claims are just stupid and dishonest. I have repeatedly identified the conditions under which ownership of private property is justified and rightful. Land ownership just doesn't satisfy them.

The all-pervasive evil of this sickening idea of ownership is everywhere...how could you sleep at night???

Are you willing to know the fact that some things, such as products of labor, are rightly ownable, and others, such as the sun and the alphabet, are not? If not, then you do not understand the concept of property well enough to be discussing it with adults. If so, then we can discuss the question of what is rightly property and what is not after you stop spewing stupid lies about what I have plainly written.

[Roy L]

You are correct, but Roy's argument is specifically about the "evil" of land ownership.

Thank you for identifying the fact that he flat-out LIED about what I have plainly written.