The Single Tax - Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Steven Douglas]

...you will tell any lie, no matter how preposterous, about what LVT proponents plainly say, and about the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, in order to deceive people into opposing the LVT that would make them free and prosperous.

It's just pure evil.

No, my fine feathered People Repellent, your version enslaves. I think that deep down inside that's what appeals to you most about it.

It is indisputable that ownership of land and the power to dispose of it are NOT requirements for life...

No, it's a requirement for security in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Away from your nasty, people enslaving hell of an artificial treadmill that makes swim-or-die sharks out of everyone.

There is always going to be a barrier, because land is scarce and its supply is fixed.

Go away with your artificial barriers to the ordinary people you are pretending to protect, but in reality pigeon-holing, and sweeping aside. It's really, really creepy.

IOW, having realized that you intend to advocate wholesale, uncompensated violation of people's rights, you simply decide that you will not be thinking about other people's rights.

Again with the creepy assumptions, and no respect for real rights for real individuals.

If everyone but those acting in privilege have the right to own and dispose of an area of duty-free land, NOBODY'S rights are violated. Your fake human enslaving paradox sees everybody as violating everybody else's rights, even while privileged entities who really are prone to this behavior, and are responsible for the problem, are thrown into the mix and treated as equals. And "$#@! Granny", remember? She can get the hell out of her house and make way for "more productive hands", as we ignore the fact that "production" and "productivity" is not the purpose of a house. I don't buy into your slippery, wet, cold people-hating nastiness for a moment. Never did. Real people have something that Walmart, foreigners, speculators and others can never have, and that is worth far more than your pathetic empty promise of an exemption.

The opportunity represented by seven acres of mountainside in Alaska is the same as the opportunity presented by seven acres of prime retail space in NYC??

No, Mr. Coveter and worshiper of prime space in major metropolitan cities, who thinks of land only in terms of its commercial economic value. I'm not even promoting seven acres as a number each individual could have duty-free as a matter of right. Only that a fixed area, not "market value" apply equally to all who actually have human, inalienable rights.

Even so, seven acres of prime retail space in NYC isn't a primary residence, is it. Not to mention it's usually owned by someone acting as a matter of privilege, not right - which means that LVT would apply. Seven acres of prime RESIDENTIAL space in NYC might be an option for the super-wealthy - but that's true under your nightmare of an all-enslaving plan, where the super-wealth (EVEN FOREIGNERS) can cause someone to be priced out of their home, simply because they were willing to give YOUR ALL-ENCOMPASSING DEVIL version of LVT more due. Under mine the super-wealthy would have to actually have rights, own that land as matter of right, and live on that land, declaring it as their primary residence. Otherwise, LVT applies, so they would have to pony up. Those acting as a matter of right, on the other hand, would be safe and secure - under no pressure or obligation to move or sell to anyone for any price -- a thought so unthinkable to the likes of you that it makes you physically ill to even contemplate it. Dems da breaks.

As for "opportunity presented" to any individual in an area where they choose to purchase land, that may be a criteria for you personally, but that isn't my business or yours where others are concerned. As long as foreigners, corporations, speculators and others acting as a matter of privilege are paying the tax, speculation is a costly enterprise, and land values naturally go down. How real people with real rights behave with regard to the land they acquire duty-free is part of the free market, with nobody deprived of any right, and therefore none of your concern. They have a floor based on area, not value. You can trade up from there, but at the very least you'll be safe and secure from ravenous people-hating likes of Roy L, who wants all entities foreign and domestic, real and fictitious persons alike, treated as equals.

As for Alaska - funny you should say that, as I see seven acres of mountainside there as worth more than anything in any metropolitan city. Pure heaven, with all the "opportunity" I need. But that's me. I don't give a $#@! about the concrete metropolises you see as models worth artificially compressing and encouraging.

So the landowner is privileged to take the value others have created.

No, the private primary residential landowning homeowner is truly free, is exercising rights that deprive nobody of any rights or value. She is not automatically presumed to have bought land as a commercial investment, nor presumed to be a "producer for all that the community provides". She IS presumed (as an individual with actual rights) to be part of that community that actually PROVIDES the value -- including her conditional permission, as a fellow sovereign in the community, for privileged entities to conduct themselves in her community, provided they pay the price.

Let me guess: you own seven acres of valuable land that you are not using for anything remotely close to its productive potential.

Wrong on two counts. I don't own seven acres of land, and I'm not so simplistic in my thoughts as to think of all land (EVEN RESIDENTIAL LAND FOR $#@!S SAKE!) in term of its "productive potential". Aside from the dwellings themselves, which are built and ultimately occupied as a matter of CONSUMPTION, NOT PRODUCTION, what exactly is "produced" on residential land? What is it about HOME LAND that keeps you looking at it only in terms of its "productive potential"?

PRODUCTIVE TO WHOM?