Page 18 of 35 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 540 of 1050

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

  1. #511

    Default

    Aside from all the psychotic noise, an LVT is superior to taxation on economic activity including not only income, capital gains, inheritance and sales taxes but value added and anything else you can think of.

    Blither away about how evil it may be for whatever reasons, valid or invalid, but it stands as superior to all of those options.

    If you say "all taxation is theft" then you need to come up with some alternative means of supporting the FORCE that stands behind all property rights claims.
    Last edited by jabowery; 04-06-2012 at 10:55 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #512
    Member helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Absorb thoroughly. Twist.
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jabowery View Post
    alternative means of supporting the FORCE that stands behind all property rights claims.
    Defensive force is fine, it is aggressive force which is an inferior means of inter-human interaction. And of course the free market is perfectly capable of providing security services, including whatever force or threats of force might be necessary to protect the persons and property of paying customers. The same principles apply which make the market capable of providing every other type of service.
    Download hundreds of Ron Paul songs: by Torrent or Dropbox

  4. #513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    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.
    No. While it is true that the market has to determine land values, that is the intended system anyway, so there is nothing to dispute. It is not true that artificial reduction of the available land would result in a deadweight loss IF the amount of land removed from the market for parks, military use, etc. is economically fixed: i.e., if it doesn't vary according to price. You may be skeptical of that proviso, but when land rent is all recovered for public purposes and benefit anyway, there is no real incentive for individuals or government to add or remove reserved land.
    That assumes that all benefit from all land belongs to everyone/the state,
    As the benefit is publicly, not privately created, it rightly belongs to the public, no matter how badly greedy thieves want to steal it.
    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.
    They evaporate in at least three different important ways:

    1. As the productive no longer have to support a greedy, idle, privileged, parasitic landowning class that pockets roughly the same amount of money the government spends on services and infrastructure, they have much more money to spend -- probably double or triple their current disposable income. In most cases, that alone is enough to make them no longer poor or in danger of being murdered by landowner greed.
    2. LVT encourages landholders to use their land productively, which usually means hiring people to work on it. This increases wages in two different ways: the margin moves in, reducing land rents as a fraction of production, and unemployment drops off a cliff, compelling employers to offer higher wages.
    3. The universal individual land tax exemption guarantees every resident citizen secure tenure on enough land to live on. No one need be poor because they can't afford to pay a landowner for access to the opportunities government, the community and nature provide.
    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.
    The market would determine land value, "the State" would determine the exemption amount. There are various statistical formulae that could be used to determine the exemption amount without "evil bureaucrat" intervention. Quibbling over the amount is a red herring. It's enough to live on.
    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),
    Actually, lots of ordinary people choose to live on very small amounts of very valuable land. See the high-rise apartment buildings of NYC.
    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,
    You do not know what deadweight loss is.
    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.
    Yes, and in what you are no doubt pleased to call your, "mind," if the government of the LVT state rounded up all the blonde 12-year-old girls and sold them as sex slaves to landowners in Pakistan, that would no doubt be another black mark against LVT.

    The LVT state HAS NO MOTIVE to lock up large areas of land from use. It simply gives up potential revenue. All you are doing is concocting something stupid, and claiming a government that implemented LVT would also do whatever stupid thing you concocted. It's just stupid, dishonest garbage.
    Last edited by Roy L; 04-07-2012 at 03:37 PM.

  5. #514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Defensive force is fine, it is aggressive force which is an inferior means of inter-human interaction.
    And landowning requires aggressive force to deprive people of the liberty they would otherwise enjoy to use the land.
    And of course the free market is perfectly capable of providing security services, including whatever force or threats of force might be necessary to protect the persons and property of paying customers.
    Which is working exactly according to the blandishments of anarcho-ninnies -- in Somalia.
    The same principles apply which make the market capable of providing every other type of service.
    The main principle being that you have to be an economic ignoramus who refuses to know anything about externalities, market failures, public goods, or historical fact.

  6. #515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    I just take comfort in the fact that Roy is incapable of saying anything convincing.
    My nomination for Unconscious Self-Reference of the Month.
    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!
    <yawn>
    And remember, as everyone knows: homesteading doesn't use force against anyone.
    No, Helmuth, you are just lying. "Everyone" doesn't know that, because it is indisputably false. Of course appropriating natural resources as private property uses force against others. Just as soon as they show up, the resource thief ("homesteader") will enslave them. We have already established that fact by the examples of Dirtowner Harry and Thirsty, Robbingthem Crusoe and Friday, and the freed slaves of the post-Civil War South who were worse off landless and "free" than they had been when legally enslaved.
    If you're the first person to appropriate something, obviously no one else had appropriated it, so they are no worse off than before.
    No, that's clearly just a lie on your part. You will always have to tell lies to rationalize greed, privilege, injustice and evil. Always. There is no other way to do it.

    People don't have to have appropriated stuff to be made worse off when others appropriate it. People have liberty without appropriating it, and are made worse off when their liberty is forcibly removed without just compensation whether they have "appropriated" anything or not.

    Two men are walking in the desert. One stumbles on a natural spring and "appropriates" it. Then the other arrives, and the "non-violent" "homesteader" decides that the price of a drink of water is a day's labor. He uses force -- violent, aggressive physical coercion -- to prevent the second man from drinking the water he would otherwise have been at liberty to drink, and thus permanently enslaves him, making him indisputably worse off than before.

    I just proved you lied, Helmuth. Again.
    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.
    You are telling evil lies again, Helmuth. It's not nice to tell evil lies to rationalize and justify two Holocausts a year worth of robbery, oppression, suffering, injustice, starvation, despair, and death.
    And obviously no one's rights have been violated,
    You are lying, Helmuth, as proved above. What is blatantly, self-evidently, indisputably obvious is that someone's rights HAVE been violated. The "homesteader" couldn't enslave the other man without violating his rights.
    no one was around to be violated, just the homesteader by his lonesome, so again everyone wins.
    Except the people that the "homesteader" enslaves once they ARE around. By what right could the "homesteader" remove other people's rights to be there and use the resources he himself claims a right to use? If anything, he has had his turn, and it is now someone else's turn.
    This is really elementary logic, it cannot be refuted,
    I just refuted it, root and branch.
    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.
    I definitely have. Your whole "argument" is based on your false, absurd and dishonest premise that "appropriating" for yourself what nature provided for all does not harm anyone else or violate their rights. But I have proved many times that it does. As soon as anyone else shows up, the "homesteader" will use force in an attempt to enslave them.

  7. #516

    Default

    Roy merely proves that insane people like him have opinions too.
    Last edited by Black Flag; 04-07-2012 at 12:36 AM.

  8. #517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Roy merely proves that insane people like him have opinions too.
    You have been demolished utterly, you know it, and you have no answers. Simple.

  9. #518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    No. While it is true that the market has to determine land values, that is the intended system anyway, so there is nothing to dispute.
    The "intended system"? Whose intended system, specifically? Whose intentions? And why would that not be open to dispute? Is there something inherently indisputable about an intention?

    It is not true that artificial reduction of the available land would result in a deadweight loss IF the amount of land removed from the market for parks, military use, etc. is economically fixed: i.e., if it doesn't vary according to price.
    Red herring, as those are examples of lands reserved for actual use.

    The United States has a total land area of nearly 2.3 billion acres.
    Forest-use land, 651 million acres (28.8 percent)
    Grassland pasture and range land, 587 million acres (25.9 percent)
    Cropland, 442 million acres (19.5 percent)
    Special uses (primarily parks and wildlife areas), 297 million acres (13.1 percent)
    Miscellaneous other uses, 228 million acres (10.1 percent)
    Urban land, 60 million acres (2.6 percent).

    Out of that 2.3 BILLION ACRES, I am not referring to Urban land, Special uses, or other land that is actually put to some use. And the value of those particular lands is irrelevant, as they are not on the market, not available for use. There's over a BILLION acres of land that is not put to any use whatsoever. I would be forcibly excluded from using them.

    You may be skeptical of that proviso, but when land rent is all recovered for public purposes and benefit anyway, there is no real incentive for individuals or government to add or remove reserved land.
    Government at all times has built-in incentive to increase revenues. IF the market truly did decide the value of all lands, artificial scarcity (via land reserves, zoning laws, special use restrictions, etc.,) are most certainly a way to increase those revenues.

    The reason that incentive is most definitely in place: Not all commerce requires a major metropolitan hive center from which to operate, and WILL move to the cheapest, most economically feasible areas they can find. With LVT in place as a single tax - that means CAPITAL FLIGHT to the least expensive lands.

    Hershey specifically chose Oakdale, CA, to build a big plant, and received all kinds of tax breaks to do this, on the assumption that it would provide work for those in the community. The problem - the plant was mostly automated, and provided less than 600 jobs. Oakdale and other areas with similar problems finally addressed that problem -- and Hershey ultimately responded by moving its American and Canadian plants to Mexico.

    As the benefit is publicly, not privately created, it rightly belongs to the public, no matter how badly greedy thieves want to steal it.
    Yeah, until someone (read=MANY) say, "You can keep all your wonderful publicly created value. I'll shop elsewhere -- if I am not forcibly excluded from doing so, thanks."

    The market would determine land value, "the State" would determine the exemption amount.
    IF the market actually determined the land value, and that value was not distorted -- meaning that land was not made artificially scarce. Which the State has the built-in incentive to manipulate.

    There are various statistical formulae that could be used to determine the exemption amount without "evil bureaucrat" intervention. Quibbling over the amount is a red herring. It's enough to live on. Actually, lots of ordinary people choose to live on very small amounts of very valuable land. See the high-rise apartment buildings of NYC.
    That's your red herring. Bully for those "lots of ordinary people" who actually do choose to live on "very small amounts of very valuable land" in a concrete metropolitan hive. That's them, and their choices, and not a model for everyone to follow. There are also "lots of ordinary people" who would not make that choice, and want nothing whatsoever to do with high-rises or anything that resembles a concrete hive. To me it looks like insanity, and a recipe for something "not-so-human". But I've lived in them, and see why it appeals to some. What does that have to do with those who would NOT make that choice, and want to live as far from that as possible?

    You do not know what deadweight loss is.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss
    I was quoting wiki, which can always be wrong. Instead of merely asserting that I do not know what deadweight loss is, perhaps you could expound, and actually make an argument and explain why my understanding is wrong. Or, better yet, explain what you believe deadweight loss to be, and why my reference (which I did not write) or anything I wrote about it fell short of the mark in your mind.

    Yes, and in what you are no doubt pleased to call your, "mind," if the government of the LVT state rounded up all the blonde 12-year-old girls and sold them as sex slaves to landowners in Pakistan, that would no doubt be another black mark against LVT.
    You can KNOCK THAT CRAP OFF NOW. We have all been warned against making ad hominem attacks. I have stopped making them. Do likewise.

    The LVT state HAS NO MOTIVE to lock up large areas of land from use. It simply gives up potential revenue.
    Wrong. Exactly the opposite, since free market competition is ostensibly the primary value determinant, and therefore revenues. The success of LVT requires active competition for land that would drive up revenues. A finite number of competitors actively pursuing an equally finite quantity of land.

    All your seeming knowledge, and you seem not to comprehend the basic fundamental role that supply scarcity plays in economics, including value, price and revenues. Land is not the only thing that has a finite quantity. In the moment, so are competitors for all land. If the government opened up all land for use under an LVT regime, more land would mean less people competing for the same land that was otherwise limited in supply. That would place downward pressure on land values in the aggregate. Hence, less revenue overall, as each competitor for land pays less overall. Increased productivity from greater use could EVENTUALLY result in increase revenues, but that would be to those communities only, and a long way off - like to the tune of generations.

  10. #519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    The "intended system"? Whose intended system, specifically? Whose intentions?
    Mine, of course. I'm not trying to defend other people's erroneous ideas. Life's too short.
    And why would that not be open to dispute?
    That would be an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.
    Is there something inherently indisputable about an intention?
    Yes. If you are not talking about the intended system, you are just trying to change the subject.
    Red herring, as those are examples of lands reserved for actual use.
    The folks who typically hoard land completely out of use are land speculators, not governments, and they are waiting for capital gains, not pursuing rent income.
    The United States has a total land area of nearly 2.3 billion acres.
    Forest-use land, 651 million acres (28.8 percent)
    Grassland pasture and range land, 587 million acres (25.9 percent)
    Cropland, 442 million acres (19.5 percent)
    Special uses (primarily parks and wildlife areas), 297 million acres (13.1 percent)
    Miscellaneous other uses, 228 million acres (10.1 percent)
    Urban land, 60 million acres (2.6 percent).

    Out of that 2.3 BILLION ACRES, I am not referring to Urban land, Special uses, or other land that is actually put to some use. And the value of those particular lands is irrelevant, as they are not on the market, not available for use. There's over a BILLION acres of land that is not put to any use whatsoever. I would be forcibly excluded from using them.
    But of course, your claims are just objectively false. The billion acres you are apparently referring to are being used for forestry, grazing cattle, etc. The land is merely being used for things that you choose to call, "nothing." Furthermore, you would not be excluded from them. There's no reason to exclude you from them.
    Government at all times has built-in incentive to increase revenues. IF the market truly did decide the value of all lands, artificial scarcity (via land reserves, zoning laws, special use restrictions, etc.,) are most certainly a way to increase those revenues.
    Nope. The land market is always a monopoly market. That means one rational (i.e., profit-maximizing) landowner will act the same as a million rational landowners. So if the government wants to maximize its revenue, it can only do so by charging what the market will bear on all the land. Any attempt to game the market by holding land out of use will lose more revenue on the idle land than can be gained through the increased price of the rest of the land. The only time this relationship doesn't hold is when the idle land is an actual amenity for users of nearby land, like a park in an urban area. There is a certain level and distribution of parkland that maximizes the total land rent of an urban or suburban area. But that condition obviously doesn't apply to the vast areas of marginal or sub-marginal land you are talking about.
    The reason that incentive is most definitely in place: Not all commerce requires a major metropolitan hive center from which to operate, and WILL move to the cheapest, most economically feasible areas they can find. With LVT in place as a single tax - that means CAPITAL FLIGHT to the least expensive lands.
    Nonsense. It just means capital will seek its most appropriate and productive allocation, rather than having to account for the opportunity cost of land appreciation. Your position is simply absurd. The expensive lands are expensive BECAUSE users are willing to pay so much to use them.
    Hershey specifically chose Oakdale, CA, to build a big plant, and received all kinds of tax breaks to do this, on the assumption that it would provide work for those in the community. The problem - the plant was mostly automated, and provided less than 600 jobs. Oakdale and other areas with similar problems finally addressed that problem -- and Hershey ultimately responded by moving its American and Canadian plants to Mexico.
    So? The problem was the local government's attempt to second-guess the market. Hershey just took advantage of a proffered gift of land value. LVT ends all such nonsense.
    Yeah, until someone (read=MANY) say, "You can keep all your wonderful publicly created value. I'll shop elsewhere -- if I am not forcibly excluded from doing so, thanks."
    Fine. So what? You don't seem able to comprehend that LAND VALUE AUTOMATICALLY MEASURES AND ACCOUNTS FOR ALL SUCH PREFERENCES.
    IF the market actually determined the land value, and that value was not distorted -- meaning that land was not made artificially scarce. Which the State has the built-in incentive to manipulate.
    Refuted above. You just don't understand what fixity of supply implies.
    That's your red herring.
    No, it's a reminder to you that you speak for yourself, not others.
    Bully for those "lots of ordinary people" who actually do choose to live on "very small amounts of very valuable land" in a concrete metropolitan hive. That's them, and their choices, and not a model for everyone to follow. There are also "lots of ordinary people" who would not make that choice, and want nothing whatsoever to do with high-rises or anything that resembles a concrete hive. To me it looks like insanity, and a recipe for something "not-so-human". But I've lived in them, and see why it appeals to some. What does that have to do with those who would NOT make that choice, and want to live as far from that as possible?
    LVT gives everyone the opportunity to pay for exactly as much government as he wants.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss
    I was quoting wiki, which can always be wrong. Instead of merely asserting that I do not know what deadweight loss is, perhaps you could expound, and actually make an argument and explain why my understanding is wrong. Or, better yet, explain what you believe deadweight loss to be, and why my reference (which I did not write) or anything I wrote about it fell short of the mark in your mind.
    Deadweight loss is not just some circumstance some individual doesn't like. It's a reduction in the AGGREGATE production of goods and services as a result of the disincentive effect of a tax.
    You can KNOCK THAT CRAP OFF NOW. We have all been warned against making ad hominem attacks. I have stopped making them. Do likewise.
    So instead you make outlandish accusations about what a government that used LVT "would" do, like deprive people of access to low-value land for no reason. Cute.
    Wrong. Exactly the opposite, since free market competition is ostensibly the primary value determinant, and therefore revenues.
    Nope. You do not understand the implications of land's fixity of supply. The government CANNOT increase total revenue by holding large areas of low-value land out of use, because what it loses on the swings, it cannot make up on the roundabouts. By forcing an inefficient allocation, it could only reduce total available land rent. It can only gain by holding land out of use to the extent that the vacant land functions as an amenity -- like "green space" in urban areas -- for users of nearby land.
    The success of LVT requires active competition for land that would drive up revenues. A finite number of competitors actively pursuing an equally finite quantity of land.
    The quantity of land is not only finite (everything is finite -- except the stupidity and dishonesty of apologists for landowner privilege, of course) but FIXED. You basically just haven't accepted the economic implications of fixed supply.
    All your seeming knowledge, and you seem not to comprehend the basic fundamental role that supply scarcity plays in economics, including value, price and revenues.
    The supply of land is FIXED. An ordinary monopoly increases its profits by reducing supply below the market clearing price. Land is not like that. Because the supply is fixed, its production cost is zero. That means there is no way to reduce costs by reducing production, and no way to increase aggregate profit by taking any of the supply off the market.
    Land is not the only thing that has a finite quantity. In the moment, so are competitors for all land. If the government opened up all land for use under an LVT regime, more land would mean less people competing for the same land that was otherwise limited in supply. That would place downward pressure on land values in the aggregate.
    No. You are getting confused with the economics of a normal monopoly. Land rent is economic advantage as already revealed in the market. By taking some land off the market, you can increase the rent of substitutable parcels; but unless that idle land actually increases the usefulness of nearby land, total rent will decline because some of the resource is being misallocated.
    Hence, less revenue overall, as each competitor for land pays less overall.
    Wrong. That's your mistake. Each competitor doesn't pay less, because the competitors who wanted to use the land being held vacant aren't using other land as productively. They can't compete with the more efficient users of the other land, so they end up paying less for land -- so much less that the total rent is less -- and not being as productive.
    Increased productivity from greater use could EVENTUALLY result in increase revenues, but that would be to those communities only, and a long way off - like to the tune of generations.
    You'd see increased economic growth almost instantly.

  11. #520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    You have been demolished utterly, you know it, and you have no answers. Simple.
    The insane make such grand claims, don't they?
    Last edited by Black Flag; 04-08-2012 at 01:05 AM.

  12. #521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    The insane make such grand claims, don't they?
    Do you often engage the insane in conversation?
    “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

  13. #522

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 04-08-2012 at 04:51 AM.

  14. #523

    Default

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

    PS: point taken

  15. #524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    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.

  16. #525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    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.

  17. #526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yieu View Post
    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.

  18. #527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    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.

  19. #528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Yieu; 04-08-2012 at 07:30 PM.

  20. #529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yieu View Post
    I distinctly recall a secondary account being used to promote LVT which ended up getting banned.
    'twas JohnLVT, IIRC.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  21. #530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    'twas JohnLVT, IIRC.
    Yeah... I edited my post once I realized JohnLVT was the thread starter.

  22. #531

    Default

    Nope. Wrong. That describes current taxes, but not a land value tax.
    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.

    Oh, really? How's that Somalia thingy workin' for ya?
    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:





    As you can see in the presentation, your red herring is a failure.

    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?
    This was in response to :

    "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.

    If you are not into renting natural resources from the state, then you are into stealing them from your fellow man.
    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?:


    Do you want to be a "renter" or a thief? Most people want to be thieves.
    That's you saying property is theft...congratualtions.

    Let's be clear: only the land value portion of the property tax is without deadweight loss.
    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.

    See above. Maybe it was just your ethics that were wrong.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    The sooner you and everyone else face the facts identified above, the better off we will all be.
    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).

    If you want to live in Somalia.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.

    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."
    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.

    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).
    Last edited by ProIndividual; 04-09-2012 at 07:37 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.

  23. #532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    It's insane, isn't it, but fun!

    PS: point taken


    We may need an intervention for the poster above. Lol
    “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

  24. #533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jabowery View Post
    Aside from all the psychotic noise, an LVT is superior to taxation on economic activity including not only income, capital gains, inheritance and sales taxes but value added and anything else you can think of.

    Blither away about how evil it may be for whatever reasons, valid or invalid, but it stands as superior to all of those options.

    If you say "all taxation is theft" then you need to come up with some alternative means of supporting the FORCE that stands behind all property rights claims.
    Again, anthropology has proven property rights existed before states. The idea that the very some thing that destroys property rights by extorting (taxing) and essentially making you a renter on your own land is also the entity that protects your property rights is as illogical as it gets.

    The answer is end the state to have strong property rights. Law would be done through panarchism and private legal firms (watch videos at the bottom of this page). Economics and organization would be done through panarchist synthesis.

    The two main memes of statism:

    1. That which destroys property rights is the only reason we have property rights.

    2. That which initiates force against us is that which protects us from initiations of force.

    Both of these monopolized services, law and defense, are in existence without said monopolies. In fact, logically, they'd have lower costs for those services, higher quality services, and more accountability (all a result of competition). Once you watch the videos I linked you to, you should have most if not all of your reservations answered. The answer is clearly not believing in memes that fail upon their own premises.
    Last edited by ProIndividual; 04-09-2012 at 07:55 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.

  25. #534

    Default No Property Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by ProIndividual View Post
    Again, anthropology has proven property rights existed before states.
    Before states, what then was guaranteeing property rights? Perhaps it was not called a state as we know it today, but there had to exist an outside entity with the means of enforcement.

    In the purest sense there is no such thing as a "right" nor is there such thing as "ownership", these are both abstractions. In the real world, I suggest it is more clear way to say what is actually happening as the ability to possess/use property over time.

    There are several strategies humans use to maintain possession of property, most of which involve some type of collective agreement among a group that has recourse to a cooperative use of force.

    However, even in the most simple case, I alone could assume responsibility for maintaining possession of property. If another person attempts to possess this property, I would have no outside authority to appeal to enforce a "right" to possession. In this case I must pay the entire cost of maintaining possession of the property. Providing for this defense would certainly have some cost associated with it, probably in proportion to how much others sought to possess the property. If I don't provide resources to defend my possession of the property, I will eventually lose my possession of it to someone else with greater means. Therefore, maintaining possession of property AWAYS has a cost associated with it. The cost of maintaining possession is generally in proportion to its value. Depending on the construct, this cost is either guns, soldiers, rent, taxes or whatever, but there is a cost.

    I've read several posts that seem to ignore that there is a perpetual and unavoidable cost to possessing property. Ironically, many of those who are advocating an inherent "property right" are unwittingly asserting that this "right" and its costs should be subsidized at no cost to the possessor.

  26. #535

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AllBeliefsRfalse View Post
    I've read several posts that seem to ignore that there is a perpetual and unavoidable cost to possessing property. Ironically, many of those who are advocating an inherent "property right" are unwittingly asserting that this "right" and its costs should be subsidized at no cost to the possessor.
    False choice, as that presumes that there is no other way to pay for property rights enforcement and protection except through an ad valorem tax of some kind.

    You slipped in "the cost of maintaining possession is generally in proportion to its value", as if it was a priori correct, or axiomatic, when it is not. For example, property value for property value, a store owner out in the boondocks is far more vulnerable and at risk to losses than an entire mall with a few door rattlers patrolling, and an entire police force that covers a broad area. Police forces don't increase proportionately with the population, and if anything, they increase according to the risks associated with a given population. Which is why banana republics and run down cities, the property values of which are lower, have a greater cost of protection. Likewise, small towns have a much greater per capita cost for their police forces than do major metropolitan cities, and yet the property values themselves are inversely proportionate -- often many times greater in the densely populated areas.

    Back to the original point, the question is not one of an ad valorem tax versus "no funding for protection". A rejection of an ad valorem tax is not tantamount to a rejection of all means of paying for protection.

  27. #536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AllBeliefsRfalse View Post
    Before states, what then was guaranteeing property rights?
    By private law enforcement. Who protects the ATM money? Brinks private security. Who protects the mall directly? Private security. A state is an enforced and coercive monopoly over these services with regard to geographic area. To think these services did not, or would not, exist in the market if that coercive monopoly was lifted (and with it, the extortion that funds it) is ahistorical and a logical leap.

    Also, more times than not, property rights are guaranteed not by enforcement, but by virtue of the fact most people aren't sociopaths themselves (although most of them lend creedence to it by cheerleading for sociopathy by proxy - the state). Since only 2-4% of the population are sociopaths who go around violating each other's rights constantly, 96-98% of us don't even require enforcement to stay within the realm of universally preferable behavior regarding all individual rights. I mean, normal people don't walk around murdering, raping, and pillaging just because they could get away with it. The fact they aren't mentally deficient in terms of empathy makes them largely incapable of these actions even when utility to do so is present. Only in extreme conditions (like hunger, homelessness, etc.) do most people without sociopathic traits act purely on utility.

    In the end, for the 2-4% of us that need constantly governed by others (after having sacrificed and compromised their individual sovereignty via aggressive actions) are the vast minority. In no way does this suggest we need a monopoly on law enforcement. Do we require law enforcement? Yes. Does it need to be a state monopoly? No.

    I'm not arguing against policing, I'm arguing against monopolies on it. I'd personally fund police via payment or donation if there were no state monopoly on the service, and I'd do so happily...because it'd be cheaper than being extorted (taxed) to fund a monopoly which had no competition and therefore higher costs, lower quality service, and very little accountability (if any). The same can be said of roads, fire service, courts, military, first class mail, welfare, etc.

    Any monopoly the state holds over a service is unnecessary for one of two reasons:

    1. The service isn't demanded by the market, so it shouldn't exist to begin with.

    2. (More likely) the service is demnaded by the market and would therefore exist because of demand in the absence of the state.

    In the purest sense there is no such thing as a "right" nor is there such thing as "ownership", these are both abstractions.
    This is a Max Stirner approach to ethics; "rights are spooks ion the mind". As utilitarianism and ethical egoism have their validity, I won't argue with your consequentialist approach to ethics...but I will say that it's purely a matter of semantics to debate how someone rhetorically justifies "rights" or "utilitarian outcomes". Deontological ethics will arrive at the same result more times than not using the language of rights, which I personally prefer for ease of use. I think both deontological and consequentialist ethics are incomplete in defining universally prefered human behavior in society, and equally incomplete in predicting human behavior in moderate and extreme circumstances (given which theory you use for which situation).

    The main point is this: whether you believe rights exist or not is a matter of semantics, not mechanism. Rights did not (anthropology) and do not exist because of a monopoly on law enforcement. This is like saying food didn't exist in Russia until the Soviet Union monopolized it's distribution and manufacture. Notice, when that monopoly ended on food, many Russians feared they would starve to death...but instead the market provided the food at low cost, with widespread distribution, and with no long lines for days to get meager rations. Just as you cannot imagine property existing without a monopoly on law enforcement, the Russian in Soviet Russia couldn't imagine food being distributed properly (or better) in a non-monopolized siutation. It can be very difficult to break free of our bias of experience. I often quip this problem as such:

    "I saw a monkey ride a bicycle. I never saw a human or bear ride a bicycle. Therefore only a monkey can ride a bicycle."

    See why this is completely illogical?

    In the real world, I suggest it is more clear way to say what is actually happening as the ability to possess/use property over time.
    I wouldn't disagree totally. For instance, I think it is a harm according to natural law, utilitarianism, and the non-aggression principle to bury car batteries by the hundreds on your land, given when you die it will be an expense passed on to the next owner (even if related to you) that will require an expensive clean-up. For simplicity I also ignore the ground water contamination aspect here. But, in this way "property" is simply "possession that can be transfered via voluntary contract", such as inheritance or sale. This is demonstrated in natura law via the distinction of unalienable natural rights versus alienable natural rights...where life, speech, religion are unalienable (cannot be transfered, sold, and are not subect to border), but property is alienable (can be transfered, sold, and is subject to border).

    But none of this, again, precludes competition form providing this service of possession/property protection from agression in the market.

    There are several strategies humans use to maintain possession of property, most of which involve some type of collective agreement among a group that has recourse to a cooperative use of force.
    And this agreemnet can be voluntary and contractual as opposed to coerced and monopolized. I ask you to look up panarchism and panarchist synthesis for details...or watch the videos linked to in the post you quoted above.

    However, even in the most simple case, I alone could assume responsibility for maintaining possession of property.
    Well, in fact, you are the first line of defense. The extemporaneous defense provided by law enforcment are just deterents ultimately. Well that, and they settle disputes via the court (another monopoly that can be ended).

    If another person attempts to possess this property, I would have no outside authority to appeal to enforce a "right" to possession. In this case I must pay the entire cost of maintaining possession of the property.
    You already do pay this cost...it's called tax. Those who pay no net tax in society are free riders. That would likely occur with or without a state...but rest assured that because of competition in absence of a monopoly on this service, it would be affordable to many more people than it is now, therefore decreasing the free rider problem. Also, all law in panarchism is contractual (an actual social contract, not simply a coerced thing we are told is a social "contract", even though you can never withdraw from it without moving geographically, cannot void it when the other party, the state, breaks the agrreed terms and conditions, not to mention the fact YOU never consented to it, some dead dudes did a long time ago on behalf of everyone accidentally born in their gang tuf (geographic monopoly) thereafter). Because all law in panarchism is contractual, you can either pay for your law (and choose what laws you and other willing participants will follow) or you can form non-profit social contracts with payed enforcers or volunteer enforcement. Any number of things might exist in the absence of monopoly and uniformity.

    The main point is, you do pay for it now, and it's more expensive when it's monopolized (not to mention, the service is worse and the accountability for the enforcers is low or non-existent). It's also uniform according to geography instead of uniform according to willing participants only. If someone wants to steal, and another signs that contract with them, they can be both free to steal...from ONLY those who willing agree to it. If they steal from those not in that contract, they face penalties of the law enforcement provider of the victim. To see how disputes are settled by different law enforcement groups in the same geographic area, again, go to the link provided and watch the videos I left in the post you quoted above.

    Providing for this defense would certainly have some cost associated with it, probably in proportion to how much others sought to possess the property.
    Yes, this is generally how market insurance (even legal insurance) would work.

    If I don't provide resources to defend my possession of the property, I will eventually lose my possession of it to someone else with greater means.
    No, because regardless of the contract, only people willing to be agressed against can legally be agressed against. Since you obviously do not wish to be agressed against, you will be compensated by your insurer anytime you are. They will have a great market incentive to limit the ability of others to agress against you, and to bring those to justice who do. You not paying as much as a rich person pays is proportional to the value of your property and the risks associated with where it is kept (or resides). You pay a high rate in a ghetto, but based upon the relatively small amount of land you own...whereas the rich man will pay a lower rate, but in total more because he has so much more to insure. In the end, you both have protection against unwilling agression. The state agresses, they are the only body legally allowed to do it. Once the state is abolished, no one will accept any institution agressing against unwilling people and their property/possessions. Without the state created barriers to entry into the market (via their monopolies on police, courts, and laws via social contracts) no one will be able to stay in business after agressing against innocent victims. People will switch social contracts and law enforcement providers (as shown in the videos) like they switch internet service providers or cable TV companies. Without the funding coming in, the agressive company will wither and go bankrupt as quickly as it became rich. It's expensive to fund agression...it takes taxes (against people's wills) to accumulate the kind of capital needed to fight wars. No one company, no matter how rich, has trillions of dollars to find wars of agression...only states who fund themselves through compulsory extortion (tax) can have theose resources ad infinitum.

    Therefore, maintaining possession of property AWAYS has a cost associated with it. The cost of maintaining possession is generally in proportion to its value. Depending on the construct, this cost is either guns, soldiers, rent, taxes or whatever, but there is a cost.
    Again, we're not talking about anything for free here...we're talking about more efficient, less expensive, better quality, more accountability, and less tyranny in those services you pay for.

    I've read several posts that seem to ignore that there is a perpetual and unavoidable cost to possessing property. Ironically, many of those who are advocating an inherent "property right" are unwittingly asserting that this "right" and its costs should be subsidized at no cost to the possessor.
    I don't know of any serious anarchist who suggests there is no cost to maintaining property, or law, or roads, or any other service the government monopolizes coercively out of the market. I would say though that no right is granted by government, it's yours by virtue of your humanity....so the state can only agress against that right, like any other thug who might agress against it.

    Also see Steven Douglas's argument above.
    Last edited by ProIndividual; 04-10-2012 at 07:13 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.

  28. #537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ProIndividual View Post
    Again, anthropology has proven property rights existed before states.
    But only justifiable property rights in products of labor, not the unjust privilege of property in land.
    The idea that the very some thing that destroys property rights by extorting (taxing)
    Government does not destroy property rights, that is just an absurd fabrication on your part. Government is the only agent capable of securing and reconciling property rights, and it has to be paid for somehow. That somehow is taxes. You just want the productive to be robbed to pay for the service that benefits property owners.
    and essentially making you a renter on your own land
    Blatant question-begging fallacy. What would make it "your own" land any more than "your own" river, "your own" ocean, "your own" atmosphere or "your own" sun? And try to think of something more plausible than, "I paid for it," or, "the law," as those would also justify slavery, and are thus known in advance to be fallacious, with no further argument needed.
    is also the entity that protects your property rights is as illogical as it gets.
    No, claiming that all the evidence of world history is wrong is as illogical as it gets.
    The answer is end the state to have strong property rights. Law would be done through panarchism and private legal firms (watch videos at the bottom of this page). Economics and organization would be done through panarchist synthesis.
    That is absurd garbage that has never happened in the whole history of the world, and never will. Somalia does not have strong property rights. It has property "rights" for the strong.
    The two main memes of statism:

    1. That which destroys property rights is the only reason we have property rights.

    2. That which initiates force against us is that which protects us from initiations of force.
    No; more accurately, those are the two puerile strawman fallacies you have just made up.
    Both of these monopolized services, law and defense, are in existence without said monopolies.
    No, they are not.
    In fact, logically, they'd have lower costs for those services, higher quality services, and more accountability (all a result of competition).
    Competition only stimulates efficiency when rules are already in place to eliminate violent aggression between competitors. If you want to see the efficiency of competing protection services, look at feudal Europe, an anarcho-capitalist society where even kings were poor.
    Once you watch the videos I linked you to, you should have most if not all of your reservations answered. The answer is clearly not believing in memes that fail upon their own premises.
    Your videos are ridiculous, anti-rational garbage.

  29. #538
    Member helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Absorb thoroughly. Twist.
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    That is absurd garbage that has never happened in the whole history of the world, and never will....Your videos are ridiculous, anti-rational garbage.
    You know, whenever you bring up Georgist ideas we could easily just reject them by saying they're ridiculous and absurd. (Virtual Roy [typing Roy's response so he doesn't have to!], patent pending: "Yeah, except they aren't, they're self-evidently true") Instead, we address them on their own terms, with real arguments. ("That is a vicious, sickening lie. When your arguments have not been puerile and infantile, they have been blatantly false") We deal much more intelligently and respectfully with your ideas than you do with ours. ("ROFL. You're trying to lecture me about intelligence and respect? As they say in Japan: it's mirror time!") I wonder why that is? ("Perhaps it is because the land value tax is an actual idea worth discussing, whereas your incoherent childish fantasies are just that: fantasies and nothing more.")
    Download hundreds of Ron Paul songs: by Torrent or Dropbox

  30. #539

    Default

    It is tiring, given that most of his post content is not actual arguments or debates most of the time. Instead he negates, dismisses, swats and otherwise bats away, even as he regurgitates his own assertions. Ad nauseam. As if it all passed for arguments.

    Take a sweeping statement like this:

    Government does not destroy property rights, that is just an absurd fabrication on your part.
    The above statement is absurd, as it is self-conflicting - and here's why: Roy himself believes that property rights (his version) are indeed being CURRENTLY being destroyed by the State -- via landownership. Can't have it both ways. Saying "government does not destroy property rights" is like saying "carpenters do not kill using hammers". There is nothing inherent in carpenters or hammers that make them incapable of destruction, or solely capable of construction.

    Likewise, governments can reconcile property rights (by whatever definition, positive or normative, "rights" are reckoned), just as they can destroy them (again, by anybody's individual definition). That's not absurd garbage, nor was it made up. It's true on its face, as evinced by hundreds of different governments on Earth that currently deal with the subject of property rights in different, often mutually exclusive ways - defensive and/or destructive of property rights to varying degrees.

    Government is the only agent capable of securing and reconciling property rights...
    And yet if government secured exclusive landownership, and codified and recognized it as a right (not subject to ad valorem tax), I would state that government has indeed secured and reconciled property rights (as I view them - in the normative), while Roy would state (from his own premise, using his own normative rationale) that property rights, as he defines them, were neither secured nor reconciled.

    Whenever Roy uses the term "property rights" without qualification he means only the collectivist geolib LVT definition of property rights as he views them (normative/should/ought only, since they are not recognized or codified by the state). Meanwhile, the actual property rights that do exist (positive/IS), which are now recognized and codified by the state are referred to by Roy as "landowner privileges". Not objective reality in either case.

    Thus, neither of Roy's views can be positive statements (i.e., accurate statements of what actually is now) - both are normative. It is only positive if we all stand in Roy's head and acknowledge that landscape as "reality". As it is. But within his head only. He's saying what "ought to be" as if it already was - taking his own rationale and trying to pass it off as if it was already fact. This is argument FROM (not to) the premise.

    Too bad, because you can't have a rational discussion with anyone on that basis - not without at least a willingness to accurately state what is, however distasteful it might be to the one communicating.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 04-11-2012 at 05:12 PM.

  31. #540

    Default

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Steven Douglas again.
    Good post ^

    And good luck Roy...I'm not going to keep responding to such an insulting person. I've clearly made my arguments, and others can obviously more than handle you and your Georgism/statism from here.
    Last edited by ProIndividual; 04-11-2012 at 08:16 PM.
    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.

Page 18 of 35 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

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