Page 17 of 35 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 510 of 1050

Thread: The Single Tax - Land Value Tax (LVT)

  1. #481
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    I know you do not believe people have a right to "that kind" of liberty, because that is the kind of liberty that honest people and good dictionaries mean when they use the term, "liberty." The "kind" of liberty that you mean by "right to liberty" is the kind that enables greedy, idle, privileged parasitic landowners to rob the productive of a quarter of their rightful earnings, and to murder 10 or 15 million innocent people every year, year after year. You believe the right to liberty is a "right" to pay an extortionist for not exercising his legal authority to prevent one from doing what one would otherwise be perfectly at liberty to do.
    Now you're getting it. My land. As a greedy, privileged parasitic landowner, I intend to steal and exclusively hold a small parcel for myself, and exclude everyone else who would otherwise be perfectly at liberty to use it. And I also intend not to compensate the community for any part it might have played in "soaking value" into my land. My gain. And the gubmint - I lubs me some good non-LVT gubmint, because I can chip in a little here and there along with others to get some commonly used infrastructure from it. As a bonus, my gubmint-which-I-lubs will provide all the force I need to be the lone parasite on my particular plot of land - which I own - thus forcibly excluding others from access to it without any compensation to them for their deprivations. Furthermore, I might charge extort some rent - some unearned value - for others to use it, thus further contributing to the murders if 10 or 15 million innocent people every year, year after year.

    Cause that's how we mountain pass parasitic landowner bandits roll, Roy.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #482
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    As a greedy, privileged parasitic landowner, I intend to steal and exclusively hold a small parcel for myself, and exclude everyone else who would otherwise be perfectly at liberty to use it.
    Well, at last: an honest statement of fact from you.
    And I also intend not to compensate the community for any part it might have played in "soaking value" into my land. My gain.
    At others' expense. Check.
    And the gubmint - I lubs me some good non-LVT gubmint, because I can chip in a little here and there along with others to get some commonly used infrastructure from it.
    Infrastructure that is "commonly used" -- but that the productive must pay landowners full market value for if they want access to it, as well as paying the taxes that fund it, so that the landowners can pocket one of those payments in return for nothing. Check.
    As a bonus, my gubmint-which-I-lubs will provide all the force I need to be the lone parasite on my particular plot of land - which I own - thus forcibly excluding others from access to it without any compensation to them for their deprivations. Furthermore, I might charge extort some rent - some unearned value - for others to use it, thus further contributing to the murders if 10 or 15 million innocent people every year, year after year.

    Cause that's how we mountain pass parasitic landowner bandits roll, Roy.
    I know, and that is what I have been telling you for 250-odd pages. Thanks for finally admitting it.

  4. #483
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    I know, and that is what I have been telling you for 250-odd pages. Thanks for finally admitting it.
    It was the least I could do, given all your utter clarity in pointing out all the indisputable facts of objective reality, which of course could only point one to a single common conclusion - assuming they don't refuse to know facts as you do...which are, of course, indisputable facts of objective reality. So yeah, I figure that taking a good measure of value from that infrastructure creating and value-infusing community - gaining at their collective expense without any compensation to anyone, and even charging for use of that land and pocketing payments in return for nothing - that seems like a good investment to me. It's something I hope to protect as a matter of right, because it is a great deal for me, anyway, no matter how many people are out of pocket, deprived and uncompensated as a result, and regardless how many millions of innocent people it enslaves and/or kills each year. Year after year.

  5. #484
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    It was the least I could do, given all your utter clarity in pointing out all the indisputable facts of objective reality, which of course could only point one to a single common conclusion - assuming they don't refuse to know facts as you do...which are, of course, indisputable facts of objective reality. So yeah, I figure that taking a good measure of value from that infrastructure creating and value-infusing community - gaining at their collective expense without any compensation to anyone, and even charging for use of that land and pocketing payments in return for nothing - that seems like a good investment to me. It's something I hope to protect as a matter of right, because it is a great deal for me, anyway, no matter how many people are out of pocket, deprived and uncompensated as a result, and regardless how many millions of innocent people it enslaves and/or kills each year. Year after year.
    This is wonderful, Steven. You are really shaking hands with the truth, and enunciating the landowner ethic with remarkable clarity. I'm impressed. Congratulations!

  6. #485
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    This is wonderful, Steven. You are really shaking hands with the truth, and enunciating the landowner ethic with remarkable clarity. I'm impressed. Congratulations!
    Yeah, I figured, what's the harm in a trip down the rabbit hole between old friends?

    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!

    Well, I guess it doesn't help that it's part of an austerity plan, with the tax strongly recommended by the EU, ECB and IMF.

    http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/201...tops-here.html
    The charge this year is a flat-fee €100 ($130) per dwelling, but is expected to rise dramatically next year once Ireland starts to vary the charge based on a property's estimated value. Anti-tax campaigners have urged the public to ignore the tax demand, arguing that the government doesn't have the power to collect it.

    Ireland imposed the charge as part of its ongoing negotiations with the European Union, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund, which in 2010 provided Ireland a €67.5 billion ($90 billion) credit line to pay its bills through 2013.
    You might want to go to Ireland and remind them about the importance of LVT exemptions for individuals.

  7. #486
    lolz...I think the sarcasm is lost on Roy L.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  8. #487
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    All taxation leads to corruption. The basic premise of taxation is already morally corrupt.
    Except it is not really a tax. The landholder pays rent to everyone else for the PRIVILEGE to exclude them from a piece of land.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  9. #488
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Land only tax, property only tax, any type of tax still relies on coercion, intimidation and force.
    Landholding is coercion, intimidation and force.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #489
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Did you notice he quoted Tolstoy? Tolstoy was a Christian anarchist and didn't recognize the State as legitimate-thus leaving no mechanism to even collect an LVT. Deception by omission. Orwell was a socialist and aside from this issue, he disagreed with the geoists. Cherry-picking for convenience and deception.
    How short is your memory? Tolstoy advocated the LVT. You know it.

    The only thing now that would pacify the people now is the introduction of the Land Value Taxation system of Henry George. The land is common to all; all have the same right to it.

    Solving the land question means the solving of all social questions.... Possession of land by people who do not use it is immoral — just like the possession of slaves.

    The earth cannot be anyone's property.
    ~ Tolstoy!

    http://wealthandwant.com/auth/Tolstoy.htm
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  12. #490
    I'm curious... How many here will be voting for Ron Paul? And how many of that group believe he actually wants to get rid of ALL TAXES?
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  13. #491
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    I really think you're on the wrong forum. We aren't statists here, you clearly are though.
    You think the flat taxers and "fair" taxers should leave too?
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  14. #492
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    You think the flat taxers and "fair" taxers should leave too?
    Would it make you feel less excluded if I said yes?

  15. #493
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    Except it is not really a tax. The landholder pays rent to everyone else for the PRIVILEGE to exclude them from a piece of land.
    lol, that's quite a nice a nice way to look at stealing from the landowner.

  16. #494
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Would it make you feel less excluded if I said yes?
    I want a genuine answer.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  17. #495
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    lol, that's quite a nice a nice way to look at stealing from the landowner.
    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/

  18. #496
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    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.
    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.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #497
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    lol, that's quite a nice a nice way to look at stealing from the landowner.
    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.

  21. #498
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Yeah, I figured, what's the harm in a trip down the rabbit hole between old friends?
    You stated the exact truth because you knew it was the truth.
    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.
    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.

  22. #499
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Did you really honestly go there?

    Joshua 1 for starters, anyone? There's a lot more, but this one's good for a start:




    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...
    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/

  23. #500
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    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.
    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).

  24. #501
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Tithe? As in tenth part of all your gain?
    That's the common belief today. But...

    Leviticus 27:30 states, "'A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the LORD; it is holy to the LORD."

    Once again, we weren't alive during the time this takes place so we can only go on what evidence we have. I believe the evidence is strong that the tithe was a form of land rent.

    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?
    I take it you didn't read the article.

    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.
    I know how to read. And you can bold words without being condescending.

    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.
    Well I was raised Christian but I only discuss religious arguments concerning politics and economics with other Christians.

    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).
    Crow calling the raven black?
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  25. #502
    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    Well I was raised Christian but I only discuss religious arguments concerning politics and economics with other Christians.
    I didn't say I wasn't a Christian. I said I'm not the slightest bit religious.

  26. #503
    Tax is extortion by the mafia (state) on the threat of kidnapping (prison). If you try to escape the kidnapping they'll send thugs (cops) to murder you.

    No tax is preferable. All tax makes you a property renter, not owner. I'm not into renting from the state.

    I used to try to come up with the best tax system too...and I also thought property tax was the best (as it was the only tax without Deadweight Loss). But in the end, I was wrong. I was being pragmatic and ignoring ethics. If tax is extortion, the only "best" tax is no tax.

    The sooner you face this, the better off you'll be. All the state's coerced monopolies can be privatized. Afterall, if the services are necessary and desirable, the market will provide them (and do so cheaper, more efficiently, and with accountability). The tragedy of the commons, the free-rider problem, and market failure apply more to the state than anywhere else (hence using those criticisms of privatization makes no sense logically).
    Last edited by ProIndividual; 04-06-2012 at 03:57 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post

    Yes, I want to force consumers to buy trampolines, popcorn, environmental protection and national defense whether or not they really demand them. And I definitely want to outlaw all alternatives. Nobody should be allowed to compete with the state. Private security companies, private healthcare, private package delivery, private education, private disaster relief, private militias...should all be outlawed.
    ^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.

  27. #504
    Quote Originally Posted by ProIndividual View Post
    Tax is extortion by the mafia (state) on the threat of kidnapping (prison). If you try to escape the kidnapping they'll send thugs (cops) to murder you.
    Nope. Wrong. That describes current taxes, but not a land value tax. If you don't want to pay a land value tax, government just doesn't help you exclude others from the land -- and if someone else does want to pay it, government will help them exclude you from the land. There is no kidnapping, no prison, and no murder involved. You simply do not get the benefit that you do not pay for, same as not getting to take stuff home from the grocery store without paying for it. And before you whine that government would then be using force to exclude you from "your" land, be aware that that is just hypocritical bull$#!+: there is no way it could ever rightly have become "your" land in the first place, as there is no way to "own" land other than by excluding others from it by force. It is inherently impossible.
    No tax is preferable.
    Oh, really? How's that Somalia thingy workin' for ya?

    There is no such thing as civilization without taxes. There is no such thing as security of human rights to life, liberty and property in the fruits of one's labor without taxes. Never has been, never will be. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently.
    All tax makes you a property renter, not owner.
    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?
    I'm not into renting from the state.
    If you are not into renting natural resources from the state, then you are into stealing them from your fellow man. There is no third alternative. Do you want to be a "renter" or a thief? Most people want to be thieves.
    I used to try to come up with the best tax system too...and I also thought property tax was the best (as it was the only tax without Deadweight Loss).
    Let's be clear: only the land value portion of the property tax is without deadweight loss.
    But in the end, I was wrong. I was being pragmatic and ignoring ethics.
    See above. Maybe it was just your ethics that were wrong.
    If tax is extortion, the only "best" tax is no tax.
    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.
    The sooner you face this, the better off you'll be.
    The sooner you and everyone else face the facts identified above, the better off we will all be.
    All the state's coerced monopolies can be privatized.
    If you want to live in Somalia.
    Afterall, if the services are necessary and desirable, the market will provide them (and do so cheaper, more efficiently, and with accountability).
    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. When Margaret Thatcher privatized many public water supply systems in Britain, costs rose and service worsened. The private market CANNOT provide an efficient level of investment in public goods. It is impossible, because essentially all the value of services and infrastructure -- whether publicly or privately provided -- is simply taken by landowners who charge everyone else full market value for access to them. The history of privately built roads is very instructive in this regard: the road building companies almost all went bankrupt, but the people who owned the land alongside the roads got rich. The same happened with most privately built railroads, unless they got huge government subsidies.
    The tragedy of the commons, the free-rider problem, and market failure apply more to the state than anywhere else (hence using those criticisms of privatization makes no sense logically).
    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. 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."

    Free-rider and market failure problems apply equally to private and public enterprises; the difference is that government can use its power to counteract and compensate for them, while private firms can't.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #505
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    I didn't say I wasn't a Christian. I said I'm not the slightest bit religious.
    Which neatly expresses the level of logic demonstrated in your posts on LVT (other than the honest ones, #481 and #483 in this thread).

  30. #506
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Let's be clear: only the land value portion of the property tax is without deadweight loss.
    Let's be even more clear: The only way that could be true is if there were no measures in place by the State to artificially reduce or control the amount of available land (e.g., zoning laws, land preserves, etc.,), and only if the free market through competition, and not the State by any formula, determined all land values. Otherwise the LVT will be fraught with deadweight loss to that extent.

    Causes of deadweight loss can include monopoly pricing (in the case of artificial scarcity), externalities, taxes or subsidies, and binding price ceilings or floors. The term deadweight loss may also be referred to as the "excess burden" of monopoly or taxation.
    So let's take your example:

    If you don't want to pay a land value tax, government just doesn't help you exclude others from the land -- and if someone else does want to pay it, government will help them exclude you from the land. There is no kidnapping, no prison, and no murder involved. You simply do not get the benefit that you do not pay for, same as not getting to take stuff home from the grocery store without paying for it.
    That assumes that all benefit from all land belongs to everyone/the state, and I'm still at a loss to understand something: The murders you believe are caused by forcibly excluding others from land where private landownership is involved somehow evaporate when that same forcible exclusion is exercised by the State under LVT. But let's go with it anyway, continuing within the geolib framework:

    Land is one of the basic needs for life itself, a need which varies from person to person. The option to not exclusively use some land on Earth is an impossibility for literally everyone. I know, your particular version of LVT would carry with it individual exemptions - not on quantity of land, but a given value - established not by the market, but by the State.

    Let's say, however, that someone wants to avoid paying outrageous LVT's associated with major metropolitan areas (e.g., not interested in living in someone else's version of a Hong Kong concrete paradise), and doesn't consider whatever "exemption" has been offered for that area to be of much value to them personally. They decide instead that they want to live where NOBODY ELSE wants to be -- in the mountains or countryside instead, far away from everyone and their collectivist madness. If all that "other land" is locked up by the State, such that they and everyone else are excluded from using it by force, such that their choices of where to live are artificially narrowed to communities already dominated by LVT - then whatever you are paying in LVT at that point is nearly 100% deadweight loss, making that particular version of LVT an hypocritical sham, given that all of the benefit of all that unused/reserved land, without any compensation to anyone by the State or anyone else, has been stolen from you.

  31. #507
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLVT View Post
    [INDENT]How Harrisburg in Rust Belt PA, USA was transformed through a Land Value Tax
    In 1982, before the change, Harrisburg, with a population of 52,000, was listed as the second most run-down city in the US. Since then, following the change, empty sites and buildings have been re-developed, with the number of vacant sites by 2004 down by 85 per cent. The city authorities have issued over 32,000 building permits, representing nearly $4 billion of new investment – nearly 2,000 were issued in 2004 alone. Over 5,000 housing units have been newly constructed or rehabilitated, and the number of businesses has jumped from 1,908 to 8,864, with unemployment down by 19 per cent. Furthermore, crime has fallen by 58 per cent, and the number of fires has been reduced by 76 per cent, which the authorities say is due to more employment opportunities, and the elimination of derelict sites, making vandalism less likely.
    I love how he use of the worst run cities in the whole country as the example of his thoughts. Perhaps he were trying to prove that his theory doesn't work?

    The government leaders of Harrisburg destroyed the city and then asked a judge to agree that the city could file for bankruptcy. The judge said no, no matter what the leaders of Harrisburg do, they will not be able to fix the city. The leaders of the city don't have the ability to do anything right except destroy things.

    Judge dismisses Harrisburg, PA, bankruptcy filing
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7AM2IL20111123
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  32. #508
    I just take comfort in the fact that Roy is incapable of saying anything convincing.

    And in reply to that he will write "Were you under the delusional impression you were contributing something to the discussion?" or "On the contrary, I have demolished every point you have made and you have nothing left to say." or what-ever. It really is hard to believe that a real person would be as repetitive, redundant, and tiresome as he is perfectly satisfied in being. And in spending hours upon irreplaceable hours of his life being so! It's really pretty tragic. But, it's affirming and heartening to the denizens of liberty to see our opponents so bankrupt. So carry on! And remember, as everyone knows: homesteading doesn't use force against anyone. If you're the first person to appropriate something, obviously no one else had appropriated it, so they are no worse off than before. Yet you are better off, at least in your own opinion, or else you wouldn't have appropriated it. So, you are better off, no one is worse off, everyone wins. And obviously no one's rights have been violated, no one was around to be violated, just the homesteader by his lonesome, so again everyone wins. This is really elementary logic, it cannot be refuted, and I already know which talking points Roy will drag out of his copy-paste text file to claim to refute it all the same, so there's no need to even bother, old buddy. Just stipulate that you already refuted it umpteen times, which, according to your definition, you have.

  33. #509
    I must spread some reputation around before giving it to helmuth_hubener again. I have been forcibly excluded, deprived of my right to liberty to otherwise give to him as I see fit, just as he has been deprived of his right to just compensation for reputation he would otherwise have. This indisputable fact of objective reality means that the rest of you bastards owe us something, and refusal to know this fact is no different than slavery and murder in the tens of millions poor forum denizens every year.

    Honest posters who don't want to be guilty of stealing, among other evils, should PM us for PayPal addresses. Either that or give each of our posts some good reputation - which will go a long way toward keeping you from burning in Forum LVT Hell forever and ever amen.

  34. #510
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith and stuff View Post
    I love how he use of the worst run cities in the whole country as the example of his thoughts. Perhaps he were trying to prove that his theory doesn't work?
    Actually, Harrisburg was doing fine with LVT until the totally unrelated incinerator problem emerged, and the incinerator problem is a creation of the EPA, not the government of Harrisburg. Harrisburg spent a fortune on the incinerator to meet EPA requirements, and then the EPA changed the requirements, leaving Harrisburg with an expensive incinerator it couldn't use.
    The government leaders of Harrisburg destroyed the city
    Flat false. The city's main problem is the incinerator debt, for which the EPA bears primary responsibility.
    and then asked a judge to agree that the city could file for bankruptcy. The judge said no, no matter what the leaders of Harrisburg do, they will not be able to fix the city. The leaders of the city don't have the ability to do anything right except destroy things.
    Your ignorance of the Harrisburg case appears to be quite comprehensive.

Page 17 of 35 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Mike Lee: Public Land vs. Government Land
    By TaftFan in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 06-29-2017, 04:54 PM
  2. Bernie Sanders- This Land is Your Land
    By Origanalist in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-29-2016, 09:16 PM
  3. BLM Anthem? "This Land Is Their Land"
    By Occam's Banana in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-15-2014, 10:46 AM
  4. Land yacht? Try Land Ocean Liner!
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-23-2010, 05:32 PM
  5. Single Tax?
    By yongrel in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 12-29-2008, 02:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •