What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Sola_Fide]

The part where "dominion" turned into "ownership."

What part of "the earth is mine" don't you understand?

Dominion means occupation and ownership. More precisely, it means stewardship, which is temporal ownership. You don't even know what you're talking about.






One very clear example in Scripture that God institutes land ownership is the prohibition of land theft. God forbids people to move the boundary stones of their property. It is theft:

Deuteronomy 19:14

You shall not move your neighbor's boundary mark, which the ancestors have set, in your inheritance which you will inherit in the land that the LORD your God gives you to possess.

Proverbs 22:28

Do not move an ancient boundary stone set up by your forefathers.

Deuteronomy 27:17

"Cursed is the man who moves his neighbor's boundary stone." Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"

Job 24:2

Men move boundary stones; they pasture flocks they have stolen.

Roy, the Scriptures are clear. If you are advocating moving (or eliminating) your neighbor's boundary stone, you are engaging in theft. Actually you are engaging in coveting, because you are desiring something that is your neighbor's. This is because people actually own land.

[pcosmar]

<yawn> You start thumping your Bible at me, sunshine, and I'm going to rub your nose in it.

I didn't start. You were the one using the Bible as a reference. Incorrectly.
I only attempted to correct your error.

Go ahead,, keep flaunting your ignorance.

[Steven Douglas]

[The cartel of thieves that formed a government are] still thieves, because like any other landowner, they aren't creating any value in return for the value they take.

OK, so one distinction between government and a cartel of thieves, as you see it, are the uses for the money they take as "value in return". So if the same organized thieves use part of the funds to improve their own roads, establish their own concessions and created other infrastructure and services that make it easier for people traveling through the pass, that would take them off the hook, as no longer thieves? Assuming, of course, that no ownership titles were given to others, but were retained only by "the state" (the same gang of thieves that organized, gained acknowledgment and recognition of sovereignty by surrounding countries).

Like you said, "As effectively private landowners, these "governments" are very much the same as the bandit collective "government" in the pass that you described."

You mentioned that each government has "degrees of legitimacy" based on their "commitment to their legitimate function of securing and reconciling the equal rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor", but how that actually translates to a reliable "rule of law", one that is not based on subjective or prejudicial interpretations is still very unclear to me.

For example, in all cases, whether a democracy, a sheikdom, or a totalitarian dictatorship, a government could, in theory, satisfy all of your requirements of "improvements and a return of value for value taken". Furthermore, in all cases, title will be held by a "sovereign owner", noting that even in a democracy, the "sovereign owner" is, by strict definition, "the majority" - whomever that might be, even if it is mislabeled (falsely, evilly, wickedly, yada yada) as "The People". That, to me, is "private ownership" by any other label. The only difference, in the case of a democracy, for example, is that title transfer can occur by political, rather than economic means.

In all cases, where is the reliable rule of law, given that everyone might describe terms like "legitimacy", "equal", "rights", "liberty", "property", etc., quite differently? In short, and I am asking in earnest - since you give preference to and seem to be more trusting of democratic governments, what mechanism could be in place to prevent "the tyranny of the majority"?

[eduardo89]

I suggest we quit feeding the troll. I'm pretty sure he'd be more happy living with Chavez than under a Ron Paul presidency.

He's already called my family a gang of evil, thieving, entitled parasites because we own land in Mexico. He admires a despotic, corrupt socialist ex-President and has no respect for property laws. What the hell is he doing here?

[Roy L]

At this point, there is no debate...it's just you name-calling and not giving substantive rebuttals.

You are the one who started out by calling me a communist, sunshine, remember? That was name calling; it was a lie; and it was a stupid and disgraceful one.

I have provided substantive rebuttals to your scriptural "arguments" (actually appeal to authority fallacies), even though scripture is not the subject of this thread.

Deal with it.

[Roy L]

I didn't start.

Nor did I. The first attempt to turn this into a religious debate was AquaBuddha2010's in post #841. I was simply refuting his absurd claims.

You were the one using the Bible as a reference. Incorrectly.

No. I quoted the Bible accurately to refute AquaBuddha2010.

I only attempted to correct your error.

I am the one who corrects errors here, not you.

Go ahead,, keep flaunting your ignorance.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

[Sola_Fide]

You are the one who started out by calling me a communist, sunshine, remember? That was name calling; it was a lie; and it was a stupid and disgraceful one.

I have provided substantive rebuttals to your scriptural "arguments" (actually appeal to authority fallacies), even though scripture is not the subject of this thread.

Deal with it.

Ahhhhh...I see. So now that you know the Scripture supports land ownership, you are just going to call my arguments "appeals to authority" and on that basis they are wrong.

Fine with me. The Scripture is my final authority, so I have no problem with your accusation. But understand that what you are doing is revealing your bias more than arguing against me.

I will gladly appeal to God's Word as the source of my worldview. Your accusation is fine with me.

[Roy L]

Dominion means occupation and ownership.

No, it does not. It means control.

More precisely, it means stewardship, which is temporal ownership.

No, it doesn't, and it isn't.

You don't even know what you're talking about.

At least I use English words correctly.

One very clear example in Scripture that God institutes land ownership is the prohibition of land theft.

Garbage. The prohibition is on unilaterally violating a tenure right.

God forbids people to move the boundary stones of their property. It is theft:

Wrong. Boundary stones were used to mark field boundaries on common land, too. There is absolutely no implication that the land consequently had to be private property.

Roy, the Scriptures are clear. If you are advocating moving (or eliminating) your neighbor's boundary stone, you are engaging in theft.

Of a tenure right. Appropriation of land as private property is theft from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.

Actually you are engaging in coveting, because you are desiring something that is your neighbor's. This is because people actually own land.

Wrong. Boundary stones were also routinely used to demarcate fields and pastures on land held in common. A land tenure right is not property in the land. You are making claims that are not supported by scripture.

[Roy L]

God gave Adam eden before he did any work. Property was a gift of God, it was not a product of labor.

It was explicitly stated to be a product of God's labor, and therefore rightly in His power to give.

If you would have read the article I posted, you would have understood this.

The article is an attempt to rationalize property in land by reference to ambiguous and dubiously translated passages in the Bible. It fails.

The "who" RoyL? Who? Who? Whose right did Jesus defend? Whose? LoL

<yawn> Landowner is a legal, not a moral designation. The Bible also makes frequent mention of slave owners. Does that make slavery rightful?

[pcosmar]

I am the one who corrects errors here, not you.

You are a real funny Troll.