The Single Tax - Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Czolgosz]

The insane make such grand claims, don't they?

Do you often engage the insane in conversation?

[Steven Douglas]

ROY: While it is true that the market has to determine land values, that is the intended system anyway, so there is nothing to dispute.
STEVEN: The "intended system"? Whose intended system, specifically? Whose intentions?
ROY: Mine, of course. I'm not trying to defend other people's erroneous ideas.
STEVEN: And why would that not be open to dispute?
ROY: That would be an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

Finally.

Roy L. 1:1-2
1: The Roy L. intended LVT system is indisputable
2: Asking why Roy L.'s intended system is not open to dispute is an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

Roy, I'm not so sure that you even understand what ignoratio elenchi is, or how many times you've committed this fallacy yourself in just this thread, but at least we're onto something, as you explicitly stipulated that we are only talking about Roy L.'s version of LVT - all else being completely irrelevant to you. And you've also declared it indisputable, proving (indisputably) that you are reasoning from an entirely circular framework.

My point has always been that current reality, current practices, especially by government, are all relevant as disputations and discussions of the practical ramifications of your particular theory. And yet you entertain your theory in a complete vacuum, and only according to the ideals and governing assumptions you have established in your mind.

There is no universally agreed upon version of LVT, that much is clear, even out of your own words - by numerous cases in both LVT threads where you rejected examples of LVT as not being in line with your intended version. You want to defend and advance your personal ideal, and that's fine, but how Roy L. "intends" LVT is only relevant - not open to dispute (with current realities irrelevant even) - if Roy L. is omnipotent, and can control all aspects of LVT. Barring that capacity on your part, which I don't think exists, current practices are more than relevant, and all your personal intentions are entirely open to dispute.

Well, Roy, when you're king of the world, and completely in charge of all LVT - and all its "Roy L. Certified and Proper" definitions and appropriate implementations, I guess we'll have something to talk about. Until then, you're just one of many, and you have a personal theory - which represents a faction. Only. And every bit of that is open to dispute whether you like it or not. That's not ignoratio elenchi, that's reality -- outside your mind, where most reality actually exists, and wholly independent of your intentions.

[Black Flag]

It's insane, isn't it, but fun!

PS: point taken

[Yieu]

ROY: While it is true that the market has to determine land values, that is the intended system anyway, so there is nothing to dispute.
STEVEN: The "intended system"? Whose intended system, specifically? Whose intentions?
ROY: Mine, of course. I'm not trying to defend other people's erroneous ideas.
STEVEN: And why would that not be open to dispute?
ROY: That would be an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

Finally.

Roy L. 1:1-2
1: The Roy L. intended LVT system is indisputable
2: Asking why Roy L.'s intended system is not open to dispute is an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

I saw this thread bumped, and thought, "Not this thread again. Isn't Roy L banned yet with at least the sock puppet rule?".

Then I saw this post. Thanks for that, your economic analysis are always spot on.

[Roy L]

ROY: While it is true that the market has to determine land values, that is the intended system anyway, so there is nothing to dispute.
STEVEN: The "intended system"? Whose intended system, specifically? Whose intentions?
ROY: Mine, of course. I'm not trying to defend other people's erroneous ideas.
STEVEN: And why would that not be open to dispute?
ROY: That would be an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

Finally.

Roy L. 1:1-2
1: The Roy L. intended LVT system is indisputable

As long as it is Roy L you are talking to about LVT. Right. Same as if I say, "Marijuana should be legalized and taxed," that proposal becomes indisputably the topic of our conversation about marijuana legalization. It would be an ignoratio elenchi fallacy for you to yammer on about the effects of legalizing marijuana but not taxing it. And if you said, "The government would not get any revenue from marijuana users," then you would be lying about what I had plainly written. You do that a lot.

2: Asking why Roy L.'s intended system is not open to dispute is an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

No, Steven, you are again lying about what I have plainly written. The ignoratio elenchi fallacy is to dispute that my proposed LVT system is the one under discussion, not to ask why it is indisputable that it is the one under discussion. The latter question merely demonstrates that you are out of your depth in any discussion with anyone who has any knowledge of logic.

Roy, I'm not so sure that you even understand what ignoratio elenchi is, or how many times you've committed this fallacy yourself in just this thread,

Provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote where I do so, or admit that you are nothing but evil, lying filth. Failure to do the first will constitute doing the second. And you will not be doing the first.

but at least we're onto something, as you explicitly stipulated that we are only talking about Roy L.'s version of LVT - all else being completely irrelevant to you.

No, irrelevant to the present discussion.

And you've also declared it indisputable, proving (indisputably) that you are reasoning from an entirely circular framework.

No, that is just stupid garbage with no basis in fact. There is nothing circular about declaring one's premises, reasoning from them to a conclusion, and declining to revise the premises merely because another party finds the conclusion unpalatable.

My point has always been that current reality, current practices, especially by government, are all relevant as disputations and discussions of the practical ramifications of your particular theory.

But in fact, that is false. "Current reality and current practices" are in part artefacts of the current tax system that do not apply to other systems. We have to start from first principles, not assume that any proposed reform is only going to be a superficial graft upon a rotten root.

And yet you entertain your theory in a complete vacuum,

Lie. I have stated the relevant facts of objective reality, of economics, and of history that support my views.

and only according to the ideals and governing assumptions you have established in your mind.

If you want to challenge my premises or the reasoning based on them, be my guest. But don't claim they are not what I have said they are, or that it is my job to defend conclusions other than those I have stated.

There is no universally agreed upon version of LVT, that much is clear, even out of your own words - by numerous cases in both LVT threads where you rejected examples of LVT as not being in line with your intended version.

Of course. Universal agreement is not something that occurs very often in science. There is also not universal agreement among biologists on how the human species evolved from earlier life forms. That doesn't mean there is any serious question that it did.

You want to defend and advance your personal ideal, and that's fine, but how Roy L. "intends" LVT is only relevant - not open to dispute (with current realities irrelevant even) - if Roy L. is omnipotent, and can control all aspects of LVT.

No, that's just more stupid, anti-logical garbage from you, like claiming that my proposal to legalize and tax marijuana is only relevant if I am king, and can control all aspects of the change. It's just stupid.

Barring that capacity on your part, which I don't think exists, current practices are more than relevant, and all your personal intentions are entirely open to dispute.

No, in fact they aren't, as proved above.

Well, Roy, when you're king of the world, and completely in charge of all LVT - and all its "Roy L. Certified and Proper" definitions and appropriate implementations, I guess we'll have something to talk about.

You do not want to talk about LVT as proposed because you know that all your "arguments" against it have been utterly demolished, and you have no answers. I can understand that. I've proved enough people wrong to recognize the pattern.

Until then, you're just one of many, and you have a personal theory - which represents a faction. Only.

Same as any biologist's views on the evolutionary history of the human species. So what? If you don't want to discuss the topic, just say so. Don't claim it is my responsibility to defend views that I do not espouse.

And every bit of that is open to dispute whether you like it or not.

It is not open to dispute that that is what my proposes LVT system is.

That's not ignoratio elenchi,

Yes, actually, it is.

that's reality -- outside your mind, where most reality actually exists, and wholly independent of your intentions.

Blah, blah, blah... Run along, little boy. I am not interested in your pathetic, anti-logical rationalizations for refusing to discuss the topic.

[Roy L]

I saw this thread bumped, and thought, "Not this thread again. Isn't Roy L banned yet with at least the sock puppet rule?".

I have never used any account on this forum but the Roy L account. The fact that you are objectively wrong about that should give you pause. But I'm guessing it won't.

Then I saw this post. Thanks for that, your economic analysis are always spot on.

Steven would not know economic analysis (or logic) if it bit him on the goolies, sorry.

[Steven Douglas]

As long as it is Roy L you are talking to about LVT. Right. Same as if I say, "Marijuana should be legalized and taxed," that proposal becomes indisputably the topic of our conversation about marijuana legalization. It would be an ignoratio elenchi fallacy for you to yammer on about the effects of legalizing marijuana but not taxing it.

That's just it. First of all, you are NOT the OP - not in this thread or the other one. Secondly, the topic of our particular conversation is LVT as it would be applied in the real world. Constraining all debate to only how it would apply in Roy L.'s imaginary world, as if that was the real world, is only an option in your mind. It is not ignoratio elenchi to "yammer on" about the effects of Roy L.'s version of LVT as it would apply in the real world - over which you have little influence and even less control.

The ignoratio elenchi fallacy is to dispute that my proposed LVT system is the one under discussion, not to ask why it is indisputable that it is the one under discussion.

Neither. It is neither a dispute that your proposed LVT system is the one under discussion, nor is it to ask why it is indisputable "that your proposed LVT system is the one under discussion". The dispute is over your proposed LVT system - the system itself - not whether or not it is the topic of discussion. Asking "whose intentions?" "whose system?", etc., is only to clarify what it is that is actually in dispute, so that your proposed LVT system (identified as such, since that is relevant to the discussion) can be drawn out from your imagination and into the real world where it would have to apply.

"Current reality and current practices" are in part artefacts of the current tax system that do not apply to other systems. We have to start from first principles, not assume that any proposed reform is only going to be a superficial graft upon a rotten root.

Like I said before, you are arguing from your own ideals, using your own set of governing assumptions which are only indisputable in your mind. You can certainly start from first principles in theory, but you since you cannot re-engineer the real world from scratch to fit your ideals, current reality and current practices are highly relevant, as it is the only HERE from which you must begin to get to THERE - as you attempt to theoretically implement those principles in a world that isn't governed by those principles.

There is nothing circular about declaring one's premises, reasoning from them to a conclusion...

Ah, if you only did that. You don't reason them "to" a conclusion. You reason them "from" your conclusion. A universe of difference.

[Yieu]

I have never used any account on this forum but the Roy L account. The fact that you are objectively wrong about that should give you pause. But I'm guessing it won't.

Pretty sure you are also the OP of this thread.

I could be wrong.

[heavenlyboy34]

I distinctly recall a secondary account being used to promote LVT which ended up getting banned.

'twas JohnLVT, IIRC.

[Yieu]

'twas JohnLVT, IIRC.

Yeah... I edited my post once I realized JohnLVT was the thread starter.