BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT. Lie. Unlike the private appropriation of publicly created land rent, the public recovery of PUBLICLY CREATED land rent is not parasitic, because the economic advantages the rent is paid for COME FROM the services and infrastructure government provides and the opportunities and amenities the community provides -- i.e., FROM THE PUBLIC -- not from the nothing the private landowner provides.It's true that greedy, evil, parasitic public rent seekers,
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT. Another lie. Paying land rent does not and cannot enslave the honest and productive, because it is a voluntary, market-based, value-for-value transaction. The honest and productive pay the same land rent either way (except that under LVT + UIE, they don't have to pay it up to the exempt amount). The difference with LVT is that they don't ALSO have to pay taxes on their productive economic activities in order to support a wealthy, greedy, idle, privileged, parasitic landowning class. They no longer have to pay for government TWICE in order to enable landowners to pocket one of the payments in return for nothing. LVT therefore indisputably RELEASES the honest and productive from their part-time slavery as taxpayers, liberating them from bitter bondage -- and that's aside from the universal individual exemption, which makes them ABSOLUTELY FREE to use land without paying anyone else anything, ever -- a liberty they can never enjoy under the system of landowner privilege and parasitism.being the vicious, cowardly filth that they are, will always try to use the state to create and enforce their rent seeking privileges to rob and enslave the honest and productive.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT. Another stupid, evil lie, as proved above.Yep. LVT, and you, to a tee.
That's Strike Three, pumpkin. You're Out.
I am thoroughly convinced that you would not have been opposed in principle to slavery or slave ownership prior to its abolition, any more than you are opposed in principle to private landownership or rent-seeking behavior now.
I guess that depends on what your definition of "in principle" is. If slave title deeds no longer enabled their owners to compel the labor of "their" slaves by force, or otherwise remove their rights without making just compensation (like the "slaves" in high school "Slave Days" -- do they still have those?), then they would be an empty shell rather than an actual privilege, like private land title deeds under full public rent recovery, and the injustice would be gone. It's true that I don't waste my time and energy opposing empty formalisms when there is so much genuine evil, injustice and oppression to oppose.
So maybe you are right -- if by opposing slavery "in principle" you mean opposing high school Slave Days.
Lie. I have consistently opposed all privileges that stimulate rent seeking behavior (which public recovery of publicly created land rents does not), as it is wasteful.That isn't your concern at all.
High school Slave Days.You would accept slave ownership in principle then,
Lie. I have proved many times that land cannot rightly be owned, so STOP LYING about what I have plainly written. Ownership in principle must include all four basic property rights -- exclusive possession, control of use, benefit, and disposition -- and I do not accept the latter two of those rights wrt private land titles.just as you accept landownership in principle now,
Lie. Stop lying about what I have plainly written, and explained to you very clearly and patiently many times.your only concern centering around the notion of "just compensation" and equal (socialized) public access to "unearned" wealth.