We have an equal right to liberty, which private ownership of land violates.This begins by begging the question, with the implied assumption that the liberty to use all land is in fact a just claim, or right (even though you avoided the use of that word) to which everyone is entitled, and therefore something that indeed should be be compensated when/where/if denied. Even the word abrogation implies a right, given that it is most often used in that context.
I have no idea what you're saying here. I won't even hazard a guess.You are referring, of course, to allocations of specific land parcels to specific landholders, of course. This is kind of like saying that no apartment complex owner wants to allocate individual apartments. As the reasoning goes, allocations would instead be decided by the tenants themselves, who would be free to allocate it for themselves, as they "freely choose" which apartments they wanted to occupy.
Your statement ignores the biggest Allocation Elephant in the room, as all geoists I have ever read do indeed want a single prior allocation of all land within a taxing jurisdiction to itself -- which would then be administered (politician/bureaucrat managed/administered) by that taxing jurisdiction. This land, once it has been annexed (allocated to the taxing jurisdiction), could then be reallocated, as it would have the equivalent of For Rent signs put on it, as renters/landholders would then be "free" to decide which land they wanted to use exclusively in exchange for a perpetual rental fee paid to that jurisdiction.
No, the land would not be "managed" by assessments. That's just ridiculous. And zoning laws and land-use restrictions apply now, without LVT.Another problem lies in how "full market value" of the land is determined. If that involves a government-created formula, or government-paid land value assessors, that is one more way in which the land would in fact be politician managed. Another would be zoning laws, or land-use restrictions.
Say instead of renting the house, we found the house abandoned. In that scenario, the rooms could be allocated by bidding against one another. Stupid people would do this as a one-time payment. Smart people would realize that a one-time payment for ongoing benefits is insufficient for fairness. The bidders should make their bids for how much they're willing to pay each month for use of the better rooms. In that way, the resource nature provided freely for the 3 friends would be equally beneficial: those who got the lesser rooms would be compensated.In principle, this is no different than the landownership market now. You pay more, you get more (of a combination of quantity and quality of land). The difference in your example is that you are beginning with a landlord/tenants relationship that is already settled.
The choice now is be a slave or a slavemaster.In today's world, people can choose to own, wherein the price paid can eventually, theoretically, come to an end, or you can choose to rent, wherein you remain on a perpetual treadmill and pay rents indefinitely. In other words, to borrow from Izzy Izzard's routine, it is RIGHT NOW a choice between Cake or Death.
Yes, and reducing or eliminating taxes on production, which you seem to have forgotten. Instead of being robbed of my production, I'm paying society for the benefits I rob them of by having exclusive use of land. And that's fair.Under LVT there would be no provision for ownership. Where the choice was once Cake or Death, it is now reduced to "or Death". The difference: the Landlord State would be spraying back at least some of that rent tax on wonderful infrastructure and other value, back onto the community as a whole.
Private use of some part of the United States is a privilege, and the USG handed it out, fairly willy-nilly.What exactly is a privilege, and what is it, precisely, that is being "handed out"?
Once again, no idea what you're trying to say. You're tying yourself in knots trying to avoid abandoning your beliefs.One other problem I see that geoists seem to have a tough time dealing with, and that is the disparity between different types of commerce, the very productivity of which is on a spectrum. On one extreme, productivity is fully land-value based (e.g., farming/mining), while on the other end, there is commerce the productivity of which is not in any way tied to land-value. That's on the payment side. On the collection and spending side, what is "infrastructure" and other state expenditures? That can be a "handout" of "privileges" which have nothing whatsoever to do with land or land improvements.
You're not taxing production. You're taxing the benefit of using the land.So it is conceivable that a taxing jurisdiction could be collecting the most revenues from those whose productivity is dependent on land, and land value, while "returning" (redistributing) value to those whose productivity is not in any way tied to land value. How do you reconcile that?
The dynamics you mentioned are wrong. And the government can always be set up suboptimally, but so what?That presumes, of course, that such land is available. In Roy's particular version of LVT all land would simply be available -- because that's how he envisions it. That's also how he deals with the deadweight losses associated with monopolies as manipulate values based on artificial scarcity, as could come about through land use restrictions (locking out massive amounts of otherwise available and unused lands), zoning laws, etc.,
In your geoist version is there any room for artificial manipulations such as these, or do you even acknowledge the dynamics I just mentioned?
It's a fact. Only a few sociopaths like to live out in the middle of nowhere and have no contact with society. People like the Unabomber.That's a projection, I think, one that ignores reality.
I like how you try to denigrate human nature every chance you get. You act as though the fact that humans are social animals is somehow shameful. It's just a fact. People who aren't social have mental problems. You're not a sociopath yourself, are you?An enormous part of the population is hive-minded, of that there is no doubt, as seen by so many who cluster in and around the more metropolitan areas. But to say "No one, really" is to ignore the reality of a massive part of the population that really does prefer not to be part of a massive hive -- with all its attendant madness (including political attempts to manipulate and control the more rural from the more concentrated areas).
Thank you. God forbid we forget about the sociopaths.There, I fixed it for you so that it's more accurate, without casting such a broad blanket over so many to which your original statement would not apply.
What would the LVT have to do with that? They're paying to live there in any case, so what does it matter whether they pay via LVT, or by buying or renting land? The reason those values are high is because people want to live there.I think the "lone man in the woods" scenario, while a real phenomenon, is also a straw man. It marginalizes a serious problem facing geoists. We're really talking about competing interests in lands, and taxing jurisdictions, and how that plays out in cases where the population concentration is not so great, and not enough competition between land users exists to create any meaningful value for an LVT to even exist. In other words, if I have enough, and you have enough, and all my neighbors are content and feel that they have enough, nobody will see a need to pay anybody anything. No competition, we're all content.
Such "wide open" rural areas, would openly compete, and serve as a check and a balance on any areas where LVT rates are high. And if that's the only source of revenue for the taxing jurisdiction, MANY would weigh their options, and MANY would opt to DISPERSE, rather than to collect and concentrate into areas where the costs are higher.
But they'd fail, because the rents are a reflection of desirability. Forcing people to live where they don't want to live would just make them less productive, which would just reduce aggregate production, and thus aggregate land rents.Capital flight is a real danger facing all taxing jurisdictions, which compete with each other for population and revenue sources. That alone places a strong incentive for the taxing jurisdictions that depend on LVT for revenues to make such lands completely unavailable - to increase revenues by artificially preventing capital flight.