You think the flat taxers and "fair" taxers should leave too?Originally Posted by eduardo89
You think the flat taxers and "fair" taxers should leave too?
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
http://www.wealthandwant.com/
http://freeliberal.com/
Would it make you feel less excluded if I said yes?
lol, that's quite a nice a nice way to look at stealing from the landowner.
I want a genuine answer.
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
http://www.wealthandwant.com/
http://freeliberal.com/
As a Christian you should recognize the evil in the idea that it is okay to exclude everyone else from land that God created without compensation.
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
http://www.wealthandwant.com/
http://freeliberal.com/
Did you really honestly go there?
Joshua 1 for starters, anyone? There's a lot more, but this one's good for a start:
2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the a land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel.
3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses.
4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast.
And just in case you might want to fancy in your imagination that it's referring to some kind of "collective ownership", or some kind of theocratic/communistic thingy, wherein the land is not actually divided and parceled out for exclusive use and individual disposition...
6 Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them.
10 ¶Then Joshua commanded the officers of the people, saying,
11 Pass through the host, and command the people, saying, Prepare you victuals; for within three days ye shall pass over this Jordan, to go in to possess the land, which the Lord your God giveth you to possess it.
It is the landowner who is doing the stealing, as already proved. He just has a legal license to steal. Remember?
THE BANDIT
Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.
A thief, right?
Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a license issued by the government of one of the countries — or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?
But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has a land title to the pass. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in “rent” for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his business really changed? It’s all legal now, but he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return, just as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is he any different now that he is a landowner?
And come to that, how is any other landowner, charging rent for what nature provided for free, any different?
It is the landowner who takes from the producer and contributes nothing in return, not the land taxer.
It is the landowner who seeks forcibly to violate others' rights without making just compensation, not the land taxer.
It is the landowner who initiates force to deprive others of what they would otherwise have, not the land taxer.
It is therefore the landowner who is the thief, not the land taxer.
You stated the exact truth because you knew it was the truth.
Indeed. Someone has obviously gone to some pains to associate LVT with an unfair and disgraceful per-household flat tax, almost the exact opposite of the required individual exemption. They have ludicrously lied that this flat tax is an "introductory" LVT when it is indisputably nothing of the kind. LVT advocates are usually required to accept these sorts of "poison pill" provisions in order to get legislation passed. It's nothing but a blatant attempt to sabotage the LVT system by dishonestly associating it with a completely different and morally and economically very inferior tax.Meanwhile, I heard Ireland was going to finally going to take the LVT plunge, phasing into LVT by 2013.
But it doesn't look like the phasing in parts (flat fee and onward into LVT) are being embraced all that well. A Socialist Tea Party, in Ireland? Whodathunk!
You might want to go to Ireland and remind them about the importance of LVT exemptions for individuals.
Sorry, making your quotations red and extra bold doesn't mean you are right.
No Georgist argues against possession of land, which is what those passages refer to.
In the Old Testament God gave his people the Law which they must follow to ensure peace and prosperity. This Law included a tithe (which some argue was a form of land rent) that went towards the community and religious purposes.
Read up on your Biblical history please:
The family was free to use the land they now legally possessed, but they could not sell it or borrow money against it. They did not own the land; it belonged to God.
http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-li...-land-rent-god
Land will not be sold absolutely,
For the land belongs to ME,
And you are only strangers and guests of mine.
—Leviticus 25:23
Last edited by redbluepill; 04-04-2012 at 03:05 PM.
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
http://www.wealthandwant.com/
http://freeliberal.com/
Tithe? As in tenth part of all your gain? As in, has nothing whatsoever to do with LVT, renting land from a collective, or being evicted because someone stepped forward with an offer of a greater tithe in return for exclusive possession?
Oh, and the parts I put in red and bold - that wasn't to make myself "more right". It was just to make sure you didn't miss and dismiss it as so much "blah blah". Which you did anyway.
And, incidentally, while I happen to believe in God, I am not the slightest bit religious. I only quoted scripture because you seemed to think you had some kind of LVT lock on Judeo-Christian scripture. Not to mention a false guilting of others based on your narrow interpretations of certain passages. Which don't really hold any weight at all with me (it really is some 'blah blah blah' for me).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote