Tax is still extortion...you pay agianst your will. If you don't pay against your will, Roy L, you are donating or relinquishing payment for service rendered. Tax is by definition compulsory, not voluntary.Nope. Wrong. That describes current taxes, but not a land value tax.
Actually Somalia now is better than before the state collapsed in nearly every measurable category. You have to be logical, which is to say comparing Somalia under the state to Somalia without the state...you can't compare Somalia to another country and get a logical conclusion. Please watch:Oh, really? How's that Somalia thingy workin' for ya?
As you can see in the presentation, your red herring is a failure.
This was in response to :By what right would you ever be an owner of what neither you nor anyone else ever produced, and which everyone would otherwise be at liberty to use?
"All tax makes you a property renter, not owner. "
This is simply logical fact. If you do not pay taxes on your land you are evicted from it and it is taken from you and sold to pay the taxes. If you do not pay rent you are evicted by the landlord and are sued for the owed money, which can result in your property being sold to pay the difference. Hence, it is illogical to consider yourself an owner of any property being taxed. It is clearly rented from the state. This also ignores imminent domain laws....which further make you a renter.
Collectives and species do not own natural resources. Individuals own property and all natural resources on it. All this geoism nonsense is anti-property. Proof?:If you are not into renting natural resources from the state, then you are into stealing them from your fellow man.
That's you saying property is theft...congratualtions.Do you want to be a "renter" or a thief? Most people want to be thieves.
Any part of a tax that has DWL will cause distortions in the market with consequences...so if you have DWL the tax is even worse.Let's be clear: only the land value portion of the property tax is without deadweight loss.
No, they aren't wrong. Deontological ethics hold until extreme circumstances where consequentialist ethics overrule them in an attempt to limit harm in a situation where no non-coercive choice exists. You want to coerce, with or without extreme circumstance. And even in extremes, coercion is a crime...it's just punished differently when there are mitigating and corroborating circumstances.See above. Maybe it was just your ethics that were wrong.
Again, this is anti-property collectivism. No community owns my land, I do. And no state is benefiting me. Property rights preceed states in history; see anthropology.Extortion is a demand for an unearned benefit, backed by a threat to deprive you of what you would otherwise have. Exclusive tenure to land is not something you would otherwise have, and land rent is a benefit government and the community have earned, but you haven't.
No one is better off in your anti-property collectivist statist society. If you want anti-propertry collectivist social contracts among willing participants, have at it...but this precludes tax from existing (again, at that point, voluntary government not a state, all payments by the willing are donation or payment for service rendered).The sooner you and everyone else face the facts identified above, the better off we will all be.
Again you make a false comparison. As surely as stateless Somalia is better and improved w/o the state, stateless America would be better and improved w/o the state. You compare apples to oranges and call that logic. I compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Nice try. Please look up "informal logical fallacies" to continue argumentation while simultaneously having logic on your side.If you want to live in Somalia.
LOL!!!! So let me get this straight...your understanding of modern economics is that coerced monopolies that aren't subject to competition DON'T cause higher prices, lower quality services, and no accountability? That's some interesting economic understanding you have there...LOL.Nope. There is no credible empirical evidence for this claim, which is essentially nothing but an article of religious faith, and considerable evidence against it.
Every bit of empirical evidence exists and shows that in the absence of coerced monopolies (not to be confused with voluntary monopolies) and monopsonies lower prices prevail, higher quality goods and services prevail, and more accountability exists than in the coerced monopolizaed situation. Simply pick up a few books and you'd know this. Georgism isn't modern economics my friend.
Excuse me while I destroy your argument here...when buffalo were communally owned they were slaughtered to near extinction. When they are owned privately they are brought back from the brink of extinction. When streams natives fished were collectively owned they were depleted and the fish got smaller and smaller because people always took the largest fish for themselves. When the tribes owned the fish individually as opposed to all tribes equally claiming ownership, the streams were managed so that everyone was only permitted to fish small fish so the breeding selectively tended to make the fish larger and more plentiful. Soon taking the smallest fish was equal to the past of taking the largest fish, as the entire stock got larger. The stock uof the natural resources got MORE plentiful under property rights, and less plentiful and more polluted under collective ownership. When collectives own property, the smaller the collective the better managed the resources. Why? Because the closer you get to individual property rights the better management occurs, and the farther you get from individuals (the closer you get to larger and larger collective groups) the worse the management becomes. Why? Because not having any percieved individual stake in the common property leads to market failure.Wrong again. The Tragedy of the Commons only applies to commons that aren't managed to secure the equal rights of all to benefit by them -- and historically, the commons typically were managed, and managed quite effectively.
Market failure is when individual rational pursuits result in collectively irrational outcomes...like when everyone has this thing called a state and they all push for "free" goodies on someone elses dime...this naturally results in deficits and debts, and when the debt grows to say, idk, 15 trillion dollars, no one wants to give up their goodies (rationally) but the end result is collapse of the economy (collectively irrational. Hence nothing is more susceptible to market failure than the state. Why? Precisely because of it's extortion powers (tax). This is no different in practice than the fish and stream example among natives.
Lastly, the free-rider problem is obvious. Around 50% of citizens in the state curently pay 0$ in net income tax, but recieve a disproprtionate amount of the servies...essentially free. So about half of people under the state are free-riders. So how is it you can use the 'free-rider problem' criticism to suggest in anarchy this problem would be a cataclysmic aspect that would lead to the collapse of such a stateless system? Of course, this is logical nonsense. It no more collapses the state now on it's own than it would anarchy. In fact, w/o legalized extortion (tax) the free-rider problem would DECREASE logically because no one could get "free" goodies at their neighbors expense w/o their neighbors consent. Everyoe would have to at least show to others they were attempting to pull their own weight, or no one would hand them anything.
So all three of these economic criticisms effect the state far more than anarchy, logically.
I don't care what his intention was...his intention was wrong. The fact stands that collective stewardship is far less efficient and far more detrimental to "commons" than private ownership. BTW, I was aware that a commonly used leftist criticism of markets was in fact anti-privatization...I simply show how it's a bad argument.Garrett Hardin, who wrote "The Tragedy of the Commons," protested later that his work was intended as a plea for better public stewardship of commons, not their privatization; that it had been misconstrued and misappropriated by the right; and that he wished he had called it, "The Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons."
Also, Orwell intended 1984 to be a story about showing one world government was preferable to multiple nations. Unfortunately for him (but fortunaely for mankind) people saw the point as "wow, the state can be scary". It's now considered a great work of fiction that was intended to be statist, but ended up resulting in the best argument for libertarianism (anarchism).