Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 454

Thread: We Urgently Need To Revert To Classical Economics

  1. #271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    So the Ron Paul Forum is merely a circle jerk for the Austrian School-minded where any alternative libertarian views are ignored? Eh, suit yourself.
    "alternative libertarian" is one way of putting it, so long as we play fast and loose with the terms "liberty" and "libertarian". We could more easily say "alternative leftist", given its statist/collectivist foundation. Either way, it's a jerk circle of its own that is far more limited.

    Funny how words get hijacked, and meanings get distorted. Fidel Castro was a "liberator" of the Cubans, and the Chinese were the "liberators" of Tibet. Why, they were ONLY about "liberty"! They were "For The People!"

    Just the word "geolibertarian" is a joke to me. Earth+free? Hardly. Not to humans, anyway, because without Roy's joke of a meaningless Universal Individual Exemption Credit proposal, the Earth is not free to ANYBODY under a geolibertarian regime. Everyone is a slave to everyone else, because everybody is presumed to owe everybody else for depriving them of their putative "liberty rights".

    Marxist ideology arrogates monopolistic control over all factors of production to the state. George distilled this into a much subtler "Marxist Lite" version, as he targeted only one factor of production -- albeit THE ENTIRETY of it, with monopolistic arrogation of land rents. Geolib "single taxers" fancy this to be "libertarian" because it calls for an end to income, sales and other taxes.

    "See that, Libertarians? We have something in common! We don't want income or sales taxes either! Yippee! We'll all be "liberated"! We only want to reclaim socialist created land value and compensate the people who created this value -- this socialist created wealth! But the people are free to keep everything else that they earn and own!!!!"

    It's also very "libertarian" if you buy into Roy L.'s view of everyone having a basic right to "liberty" to all lands, which must then be reconciled by a Land Value Tax, so that those deprived of this "liberty right" can, through the taxing jurisdiction, receive "just compensation".

    Yeah, I'll stick with my Austrian School-minded circle jerk and pass on the Land Socialism trying to pass itself off as "alternative libertarianism".



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    2. Many Georgists are in fact Ron Paul supporters...
    Of course -- it's their only real shot for a foot in the door. There are lots of "Green" tree-spiking eco-terrorists who support the Democratic Party also - that doesn't mean they're wanted, or that the party endorses their attitudes, actions or views. And their support doesn't make them any less a turd in the party punch bowl.

  4. #273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    "alternative libertarian" is one way of putting it, so long as we play fast and loose with the terms "liberty" and "libertarian". We could more easily say "alternative leftist", given its statist/collectivist foundation.
    It has no statist/collectivist foundation. We have proven that time and again. George and Marx may have agreed in a common problem but they completely disagreed on the solution. George's solution revolved around a free market. Marx's solution was communism.



    Funny how words get hijacked, and meanings get distorted.
    Yeah, funny. Like calling ideas 'statist' or 'collectivist' when they are clearly not.


    Just the word "geolibertarian" is a joke to me. Earth+free? Hardly. Not to humans, anyway, because without Roy's joke of a meaningless Universal Individual Exemption Credit proposal, the Earth is not free to ANYBODY under a geolibertarian regime. Everyone is a slave to everyone else, because everybody is presumed to owe everybody else for depriving them of their putative "liberty rights".
    No one owes anyone anything unless they themselves are depriving others from what nature provided. Pretty simple concept.

    Marxist ideology arrogates monopolistic control over all factors of production to the state. George distilled this into a much subtler "Marxist Lite" version, as he targeted only one factor of production -- albeit THE ENTIRETY of it, with monopolistic arrogation of land rents. Geolib "single taxers" fancy this to be "libertarian" because it calls for an end to income, sales and other taxes.
    There is no monopolistic arrogation of land rents. The government doesn't decide who uses the land, hows its used, or even how much each piece of land is taxed.

    "See that, Libertarians? We have something in common! We don't want income or sales taxes either! Yippee! We'll all be "liberated"! We only want to reclaim socialist created land value and compensate the people who created this value -- this socialist created wealth! But the people are free to keep everything else that they earn and own!!!!"
    Whats with the big 'L' for libertarian?

    And its not 'something' in common its about 98% of issues we have in common.

    It's also very "libertarian" if you buy into Roy L.'s view of everyone having a basic right to "liberty" to all lands, which must then be reconciled by a Land Value Tax, so that those deprived of this "liberty right" can, through the taxing jurisdiction, receive "just compensation".
    Its a view shared historically by many libertarians and freedom lovers. Many of them more libertarian than Paul.

    Yeah, I'll stick with my Austrian School-minded circle jerk and pass on the Land Socialism trying to pass itself off as "alternative libertarianism".
    Easier to hold onto false doctrines when you only surround yourself with the likeminded.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  5. #274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Of course -- it's their only real shot for a foot in the door. There are lots of "Green" tree-spiking eco-terrorists who support the Democratic Party also - that doesn't mean they're wanted, or that the party endorses their attitudes, actions or views. And their support doesn't make them any less a turd in the party punch bowl.
    So I have to agree with Ron Paul on all his stances to be a 'supporter'?
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  6. #275

    Default

    Btw, many libertarians don't consider Paul to be a real libertarian for many of his stances (abortion, immigration, etc.)
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  7. #276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    Btw, many libertarians don't consider Paul to be a real libertarian for many of his stances (abortion, immigration, etc.)
    Real libertarians as in voluntarists know Ron Paul is a voluntarist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowlesy View Post
    Americans in general are jedi masters of blaming every other person.

  8. #277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverhandorder View Post
    Real libertarians as in voluntarists know Ron Paul is a voluntarist.
    Funny, there is no question about Paul's claim to being a 'voluntarist' yet geolibertarians are shot down as socialists. Paul is a voluntarist when it comes to abortion or immigration? Give me a break.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  9. #278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    It has no statist/collectivist foundation. We have proven that time and again.
    ...to your own satisfaction, of course. Delusions of truth and moral rightness are common defining characteristics of LVT proponents. They fancy themselves as "proving" things, and "destroying/demolishing arguments", as they deal only in "indisputable facts of objective reality", while others "refuse to know", and are "objectively false".

    George and Marx may have agreed in a common problem but they completely disagreed on the solution. George's solution revolved around a free market. Marx's solution was communism.
    We obviously disagree on what "free market" means.

    No one owes anyone anything unless they themselves are depriving others from what nature provided. Pretty simple concept.
    Yes, it is a simplistic enough concept, so long as you swallow the whole "right not to be deprived by others of what nature provided" premise. Which I do not.

    There is no monopolistic arrogation of land rents. The government doesn't decide who uses the land, hows its used, or even how much each piece of land is taxed.
    Then you didn't read carefully. I didn't write "monopolistic determination of land use". I wrote "monopolistic arrogation of land rents". Which it most certainly is.

    2) Unless you're calling for the abolishment of zoning laws, and land use allocation decisions, the government most certainly does decide HOW land is used. And under an LVT regime there is a built-in incentive to exercise this zoning and allocation power such that LVT revenues are maximized. Thus, for example, if industry or commerce is willing to pay more for more land than housing, more land will be zoned for commerce and industry, less for housing (just like fucking Hong Kong does now).

    3) The government most certainly does, and would, decide how much each piece of land is taxed. Valuation is part of the levy determination, which is determined by Roy's "army of competent appraisers" that he has so much faith in. But even they were 100% accurate, such that it paced perfectly with the otherwise free market that wouldn't exist for comparison, there's still the mill rate/multiplier side. That's where human decisions are made to determine the valuation multiplier to obtain the amount levied -- i.e., how much land rents to actually capture (50%? 90%? 100%? 200%?).

    4) Not only does the government determine what formulae are used to determine how much to levy, but also how much NOT to levy (special circumstances, exceptions to the LVT rule). That's where the power of Renaissance and Enterprise zones come into play, as well as exemptions, abatements, grants, special use privileges, etc., which allow taxing jurisdictions to compete, while giving distinct preferential treatment and economic advantages to those favored.

    5) The government does not decide WHO SPECIFICALLY uses what land, any more than the FED decides who specifically gets which of its counterfeited fiat currency. In other words, NOT TRUE, but let's pretend it is true. Even without favoritism, the very regime itself is designed such that it is predictable which class of entities will ultimately have access to the very best lands (i.e., those who are willing to pay the most to the state), with ALL entities (not necessarily people) presumed as having equal status under the law.

    Whats with the big 'L' for libertarian?
    Consistency. I use a big G and S for Geo-Socialist, and I capitalize Marxist, as in Land Rents Marxist, and I capitalize Georgist as well.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 08-07-2012 at 07:13 PM.

  10. #279

    Default

    ...to your own satisfaction, of course. Delusions of truth and moral rightness are common defining characteristics of LVT proponents. They fancy themselves as "proving" things, and "destroying/demolishing arguments", as they deal only in "indisputable facts of objective reality", while others "refuse to know", and are "objectively false".
    The fact that many well known proponents of LVT were minarchists or even anarchists should be a signal to you that it is not a collectivist idea. There is also something called geoanarchism and links have been posted numerous times to it.
    http://www.anti-state.com/geo/foldvary1.html

    We obviously disagree on what "free market" means.
    free market 
    noun
    an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free%20market


    Nothing in that definition that is in violation of geoism.


    Then you didn't read carefully. I didn't write "monopolistic determination of land use". I wrote "monopolistic arrogation of land rents". Which it most certainly is.

    2) Unless you're calling for the abolishment of zoning laws, and land use allocation decisions, the government most certainly does decide HOW land is used. And under an LVT regime there is a built-in incentive to exercise this zoning and allocation power such that LVT revenues are maximized. Thus, for example, if industry or commerce is willing to pay more for more land than housing, more land will be zoned for commerce and industry, less for housing (just like fucking Hong Kong does now).
    I do call for an abolishment of zoning laws as does geolibertarian Fred Foldvary: http://www.progress.org/fold189.htm

    3) The government most certainly does, and would, decide how much each piece of land is taxed. Firstly, there is the determination of how much land rents to actually capture (50%? 90%? 100%? 200%?). That human decision determines the amount levied, as a multiplier for the valuation. That's the other side of the levy determination, which is determined by Roy's "army of competent appraisers" that he has so much faith in.
    While the percents have varied throughout history, a pure LVT would be at 100% of the land value. Yes, it would be up to government (or whatever ruling organization in charge) to enact the percentage, but the government wouldn't decide what the value actually is of each piece of land.

    4) Not only does the government determine what formulae are used to determine how much to levy, but also how much NOT to levy (special circumstances, exceptions to the LVT rule). That's where the power of Renaissance and Enterprise zones come into play, as well as exemptions, abatements, grants, special use privileges, etc., which allow taxing jurisdictions to compete, while giving distinct preferential treatment and economic advantages to those favored.
    The problems with corporatism are a huge reason why I am an LVT advocate. Compared to other forms of taxation it is easy to track and practically impossible to avoid (can't store away land on oversea bank accounts). The wealthy and/or privileged would have difficulty taking advantage of such a system. At least if they do it is not kept hidden from the public.

    There may be a few cases where I am for temporary deferments when transitioning over to a geoist system but ideally there would not be preferential treatment.


    5) The government does not decide WHO SPECIFICALLY uses what land, any more than the FED decides who specifically gets which of its counterfeited fiat currency.
    Government does not generate land nor would it hand it out under a geoist system. Poor analogy.

    The very regime itself is designed such that it is predictable which class of entities will have access to the very best lands (i.e., those who are willing to pay the most to the state), with ALL entities (not necessarily people) presumed as having equal status under the law.
    Certain classes already have access to the very best lands. The LVT breaks up the monopoly and makes it easier for the rest to acquire a piece of nature.

    And the LVT doesn't mean the government gets to offer a smaller percent tax to one class/group and a higher percent to another class/group. That has nothing to do with LVT
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  11. #280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Consistency. I use a big G and S for Geo-Socialist, and I capitalize Marxist, as in Land Rents Marxist, and I capitalize Georgist as well.
    I ask because Libertarian usually implies the LP while libertarian implies a political ideology.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  12. #281

    Default

    This is a thought-provoking article from Carl Milsted on the subject of natural rights. I don't think he identifies himself as a geoist but he clearly sympathizes with its ideals:

    REALLY NATURAL RIGHTS

    OK, this book is going to be a bit theoretical, so some of you might want to skip this and go on to the next book. However, the ideas herein have important implications. Much of the extremism of the libertarian movement is due to theoretical arguments, and many of the horrors of the Twentieth Century stem from the complete rejection of these same theories by others. So, what I am about to discuss has had a serious impact on human history despite its academic nature, and what I am going to propose can provide a basis for a “new” political coalition.

    Who Governs the Governors?

    What is a government? Is it simply the organization that has the might to control a geographical area? Does might make right? If so, is it moral to violently overthrow a government as long as you have sufficient might to do so? If not, is one obligated to obey a government even if is made of up a bunch of ruthless thugs?

    There have been times and places in history where the “might makes right” school of legitimacy has prevailed, but in most times and places governments have claimed a moral justification for their use of force. Such justifications do help avoid the ugliness of perpetual civil war, and sometimes such justifications have also provided some checks on what the governors could do to the people with their monopolies on might.

    However, many of these justifications were based on questionable traditions, and even within these traditions, the kings of old often had to stretch truths to claim legitimacy. And for modern thinkers who found the traditions in question to be barbarous relics, it became difficult to justify the often brutal actions of governments – actions that would be considered criminal if carried out by private citizens.

    But to simply overthrow brutal governments without a new moral framework would be to sink back into the barbarous state of feuding warlords. So during the Enlightenment, philosophers came up with theories of “natural rights.” Such theories were enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the resulting government has worked rather well, albeit imperfectly. Many other revolutions, such as the French and Russian Revolutions, which were not grounded on these same principles, resulted in brutal regimes that were even more unpleasant than the autocratic regimes they replaced.

    Despite the good record of governments grounded in natural rights theory, there are many people to this day who would deprecate such rights for reasons of security (the Bill of Rights is inconvenient to law enforcement) or the ability to have unlimited social programs (the strictly enumerated powers of Congress rule out well over half of what the federal government is currently doing) or central planning (the 5th Amendment gets in the way of unbridled takings).

    Purist libertarians argue that the only legitimate reason for governments to tax or perform any other action prohibited to private citizens is to allow the protection of natural rights; otherwise taxation is simply theft writ large. Indeed, the more radical libertarians would argue that even the small amount of taxation needed for law enforcement and military defense is theft, that government should be funded on a purely voluntary basis. More “moderate” libertarians point out that without government running the military and courts, there would be more natural rights violations than the government has to commit to fund itself, so on the net such limited taxation is not theft. But neither brand of libertarian can find a natural rights rationale for state run welfare systems or parks, and thus the split between libertarians and those who would use the might of the state for “good causes.”

    Many on the Left claim to espouse a different theory to determine whether a government is legitimate: whether a government follows the “will of the people.” Generally, this means more democracy. So, if The People vote to ban billboards or to nationalize the oil companies, it is morally correct to do so as long as a proper vote is taken.

    However, there are serious theoretical problems to this approach. If two rapists are alone with a beautiful woman, is it moral for them to carry out their deed as long as they vote first? If a small town inhabited by white people vote that a (living) negro cannot be in town after sunset, is this morally acceptable? If the people of a state overwhelmingly vote to establish a state religion, do they have the right to tax non-members of said religion to build cathedrals? What is the difference between a democratic government and a lynch mob?

    Indeed, many of these same Leftists who claim to espouse democracy drop back into natural rights arguments when their opposition gets into power and proceeds to violate certain portions of the Bill of Rights.

    So, is freedom an all or nothing proposition? Are we left with the stark choice between unbridled “robber baron” capitalism and environmental devastation on the one hand, or a slippery slope towards dictatorship and labor camps on the other? Or, can we modify existing theories of natural rights to accommodate the main concerns of progressives and environmentalists?

    A STATE OF NATURE

    Let us consider a somewhat idealized state of nature, one that may have never existed except perhaps on deserted islands, but nonetheless a model that gives us a standard of “perfection” to act as a yardstick for societies not in such a state.

    Suppose we have very few people scattered about a large amount of nature, such that the population is so sparse that any person or voluntary association of people can “get away from it all” in whatever environment they so choose. What rights would these individuals (or small voluntary groups) have, which frequently get lost in civilization? Imagine yourself and perhaps family and/or a few friends isolated in your favorite corner of Eden with no implements of modern civilization.

    What rights would you have?

    For starters, you wouldn’t have to pay taxes. No people means no government. It also means no slavers, vandals, or thieves to worry about. (If you are imagining a group, this right and the following rights apply to your group; if you have the wrong friends, there may be stealing within your group. “You” refers to your group if you are imagining a group.) All the products of your labor are yours. You don’t have to help anyone unless you want to. All this sounds very Reaganesque, but we are not yet done.

    There are also no guarantees of safety! There are dangerous animals about. The water supply may have parasites or dangerous bacteria. Many bugs consider you dinner. And you do not have the right to the products of anyone else’s labor: no welfare, free health care, public schools or the like. Hmmm, we are getting to the right of Reagan now!

    But, there are also no drug laws! You can take whatever herbs you can find or grow -- sounds rather libertarian. And there are no restrictions on the sexual preferences of your group, and even clothing is optional, weather permitting.

    If we were to stop with our description here, we could have the basis for a libertarian society by simply preserving the rights you would have in this idealized state of nature. The rule would be: you can do anything you want as long as it doesn’t violate someone else’s natural rights. No one can take what you have built, eat what you have gathered, force you to work for them, or force you to obey someone else’s code of morality.

    When we let some reality seep in and we have to deal with someone who violated someone else’s natural rights, we have some tougher questions to answer: How much force is justified in self defense? How much is justified in crime prevention? What is the most moral way to pay for protection from those who would violate these rights? Many books have been written on such questions, but instead of dwelling on them, I want to move on to the other natural rights and how many in the natural rights/libertarian tradition have had difficulty dealing with them.

    THE “OTHER” NATURAL RIGHTS

    Going back to our idealized state of nature, let us look at some other “rights” that people would have in such a state – rights that often get lost as population densities grow.

    First, you would have the right to Pristine Wilderness: no smog other than from forest fires and volcanoes, no billboards, no clear cuts, no machine noises, and so on. All the interesting (and dangerous) animals and plants would still be around. Hmmm, now we are starting to sound Green.
    Also, you would have the right of the Walkabout. You could go anywhere you like, and sleep anywhere you wanted to. Now, we are getting a bit of true communism to go along with our Green sentiments. Perhaps we are moving towards justification for lots of clothing-optional national forest.

    You would also have the right to privacy. Not only can you be a naughty nudist in the woods, you can be such without an audience. On the other hand, if such things disgust you, you wouldn’t have to be exposed to them because you can be isolated with your own group of upright people. Now, we are moving towards freedom of moral practice: the ability to either “do your own thing” or the ability to shun those whose “own thing” is offensive to you.

    But we are not done yet. In such a state of nature, you would also have the right of Foraging: to hunt bountiful game, gather wild fruit and nuts from trees untouched by other humans, and to build tools and shelter from whatever sticks and rocks you find, and to build fire with whatever dry plant matter you can find. In a truly wild area in the more human friendly parts of the world, it is possible to “make a living” by hunting and gathering with much less effort than modern humans work to get by. In some ways the standards of living are much lower in such a state, but leisure time is valuable. We have come across something akin to an entitlement right! It is not on the level of what the average social democrat would call for, but it is more than is called for by those who advocate ideal free market societies.

    THE INHERENT CONFLICTS

    One reason that these additional natural rights get glossed over in the literature is that they are impossible to fully maintain as the population grows. Consider the right to hunt at will. If everyone were to do so today, mass extinction of game animals would be the result, and rather quickly at that. Similarly, wild plant foods were never abundant enough to support the current population of humans. The giant natural park model breaks down into environmental destruction and mass starvation.

    Similarly, the right of the Walkabout interferes with the right to privacy. The right to exploit any natural resources interferes with the right to keep the products of your own work. Consider one group of people who decide to put their efforts into clearing land and planting crops and another group that herds animals. Either the labor of the farmers gets stolen when the herd animals eat the crops, or the walkabout and natural resource exploitation rights of the herdsmen get infringed.

    The history of the American West provides many examples of such conflicts. The rights of hunter-gathers (Indians) collided with the rights of herdsmen (cowboys) which collided with the rights of farmers (the guys with the barbed wire). And within each group there were wars over hunting rights, water rights, grazing rights and mineral rights – wars over the things of value not created by human hands.

    Private property provides a powerful tool to make the most efficient use of the land. People who own land can hunt at the optimal amount to get meat without driving the game extinct, or they let the optimal number of animal graze without destroying the grass, or they can clear the land and prepare it for farming. And the farmers who own farmland have incentive preserve the soil, rotate crops and possibly set up irrigation systems; this is in contrast with the slash and burn agriculture of semi-nomadic societies. Private property allows people to keep the fruits of their labor when their labor gets mixed with the land, thus preserving one of the classical natural rights.

    However, private property interferes with the right of the Walkabout, and the right to Forage. And neither private property nor completely public property preserve the right of Pristine Wilderness. This requires a government or other powerful institution to maintain large tracts of wilderness while restricting exploitation rights. As for the right to privacy in the wilderness, this requires limiting the number of people in the wilderness at the same time.

    The natural rights described in this section cannot all be inalienable. I think it is for this reason that many philosophers have glossed over them. But these are still important rights. There are hundreds of millions, if not billions of people who are more poor than those who live in a state of nature – even though most of these remaining state of nature people are living in the nastiest places on Earth, such as the Arctic Circle and the Kalahari Desert.

    And the right of private property in land and other natural resources presents some serious theoretical problems in regard to who gets the original title to land.

    We will explore some possible solutions in the next section.

    WHICH RIGHTS TO ALIENATE?

    “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. So reads the Declaration of Independence, one of the most forceful and consequential enunciations of natural rights theory. Note the word “unalienable”; it means that these rights cannot be given up. No one can sell or give away these rights on their own behalf or on their children’s behalf, according to the Declaration. And to this day, we outlaw gladiatorial combat and indentured servitude in deference to this principle. It is also why we have bankruptcy laws instead of debtor’s prisons, and that children do not have to inherit the debts of their parents (accept as a lien against the value of their inheritance).

    I repeat: the term unalienable implies that these rights cannot even be given away voluntarily. We have a restriction on the right of contract. Voluntary contract does not make all things morally right – especially if such contractual obligations are extended to children and unborn generations.

    The Founders declared Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness to be unalienable rights because they could. If no one murders, all have the right to Life. If no one enslaves, all have Liberty. If everyone minds their own business (drug warriors, take note), all have the right to Pursue Happiness.

    The “other” natural rights have to be alienable to some degree. As I have already shown, these rights get in each other’s way as the population rises. The question arises as to which rights to alienate and who loses what?

    Consider the thorny problem of private ownership of land and other natural resources. Private property allows for efficient use of land and, to some degree, environmental preservation; however, it also takes away the pre-existing rights of foraging and the Walkabout. Those who own land have more rights than those who do not. In modern times, this is reflected by having a price on land. If you want more land, you have to pay for it in exchange for the property rights lost by the seller. This is all well and good, but what about the right of first ownership? Is it first come, first serve? Is it right of conquest?

    Many in the natural rights tradition ascribe to an idea that goes back at least to John Locke: that the first person to mix his labor with the land gets to keep it. That is, a pioneer gets to keep the land he clears. This is because he owns his body and the fruits of his labor until he should choose to sell or give it away. If we are only concerned with the “classical” natural rights of the second section of this chapter, we are on a strong footing. To take away the value added to the land of someone who cleared it for farming is to commit theft.

    The real difficulty with this approach to original land ownership is that there is more value to land than that added by the person whose labor “improves” the land. In the case of a lumber company, the labor may well subtract value from the land as old growth timber is harvested. And in the case of a farmer who sets up a farm on a plot of land that later turns out to be on top on an oil field, the descendent of the farmer gets a very unfair share of the world’s natural resources.

    Another approach to this problem is to make the original owners of land pay a price to society in general by buying land at auction from the government (which at least in theory provides services to society). This was tried at times during American history, but in practice the auctions were rigged in favor of those who came in on the first to mix labor basis. Those who had the land on the first come, first served basis (the Native Americans) had their land rights heavily reduced with little compensation – to put it mildly.

    Regardless of how first ownership is determined, the result is that some natural rights are alienated, and these alienations are passed on to future generations. If your grandfather sold the family farm for a song to the coal company, you are out of luck.

    Is this right? Or should each generation separately receive compensation for rights given up? If so, we have a natural rights basis for a limited “welfare right”(!) l by buying land at auct Those who own property and/or exploit natural resources beyond a median share can be morally taxed at the rate of the rent on this extra share, the value of which could go to an equal dividend to all. This provides something of a non-zero poverty floor without anyone having to prove poverty. (The importance of this last phrase will be explored in a later chapter.) However, this tax should not extend to the value added to the land by human labor, since people own the right of the fruits of their labor because they own themselves.

    If I understand the secondary sources correctly, this is the idea put forth by Henry George in his “Progress and Poverty.” However, I cannot say for certain as I have not read this book, yet.

    Another place where these ideas can be found is in the Bible(!) The right of the poor (or anyone, for that matter) to glean the fields is a rather elegant substitute for the right of foraging. The law of the Jubilee Year makes explicit the difference between human generated wealth and wealth implicit in nature. I intend to cover these ideas in detail in a later chapter. Stay tuned.

    CONSEQUENCES

    If we were to apply this expanded theory of natural rights given in this chapter, we would end up with a somewhat modified libertarian society. We would have most of the classical freedoms that libertarians defend, along with some land set aside for preserving some of the right of Pristine Nature and the Walkabout, some government action to preserve those species not protected by private property rights, and a small dividend to all (which is of the most benefit to the poor) to compensate for the inequalities in the distribution of natural resource ownership.

    Some libertarian implications:

    Victimless crime laws would be repealed.
    Where possible, criminal punishment would be based on victim compensation. When not possible, punishment would be somehow proportional to the damages done.
    Taxes on labor (including the income taxes) would be eliminated. People own the products of their labor. The same would go for consumption taxes on items whose primary values is on their labor content. Taxation would be based on fee for essential services such as national defense and a justice system, and for paying the aforementioned dividend.

    Some egalitarian implications:

    The dividend that would go to those who own less than their fair share of the Earth’s inherent resources due to their choice of parents.
    The end to labor taxation.
    The end to subsidies, grandfathering, most occupational licenses, and other legal practices that directly favor old money.
    The end of certain indirect subsidies to the established interests which are not obvious. I will write about these in detail in later chapters.

    Some green implications:

    The practice of setting aside part of the land to be used in a primitive fashion would continue.
    Protection of endangered species would continue to be justified.
    Polluters would have to pay full damages, either directly to the victims for concentrated pollution or into the general dividend fund for dispersed pollutants. No grandfathering!

    Note that I have not proven that we ought to do these things. I have only proven that such things would be consistent with an expanded theory of natural rights. I have not proven that any theory of natural rights ought to be followed in any definitive philosophical sense. However, it is useful to have such a theory that does not depend purely on tradition or prevailing religion; it provides a moral foundation for a useful government that does not grow out of control. (And as I have already touched upon, such a natural rights theory is largely backed up by the Bible, which is at least supposedly the foundation for the prevailing religions of the U.S.)

    CONCLUSION

    Members of the radical Left have some embarrassing history to answer for. When Marxists got into power, the result was generally dictatorship, labor camps and a bout or two of mass starvation. But the advocates of limited government have some embarrassing moments in history to answer for, also. The paragons of laissez-faire capitalism, Britain and the United States during the Nineteenth Century, were not exactly utopias that we want to go back to.

    The major ugly aspects of both systems can be traced to the violation of the natural rights as described in this chapter. The appropriation and labor camps of the Marxist governments are obvious examples of classical natural rights violations. Slavery and lack of women’s rights in Nineteenth Century Britain and the U.S. are also obvious violations classical natural rights.

    But we can go further and lay much of the blame for worker exploitation during the Industrial Revolution on the violation of the expanded set of natural rights. Great Britain (and feudal societies in general) had a legal system that amplified the inequalities between the owners of natural resources and those who lived by their labor. Primogeniture was designed to keep the land in a few hands, and the enclosure movement took away land rights from the peasants without compensation. And the Corn Laws subsidized landowners while making food more expensive for landless laborers. Laissez-faire politicians of the time get credit for fighting against the Corn Laws and for the poor. Once upon a time, limited government was part of a Leftist agenda; it can be so again.
    http://www.holisticpolitics.org/NaturalRights/
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  13. #282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    I ask because Libertarian usually implies the LP while libertarian implies a political ideology.
    What you really need to answer, which has been asked many, many times, is what is so special about land value tax, rather than air value tax, and water value tax? When does the taxation end? And who benefits from the "tax"?

  14. #283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    What you really need to answer, which has been asked many, many times, is what is so special about land value tax, rather than air value tax, and water value tax? When does the taxation end? And who benefits from the "tax"?
    The economic definition of land includes water and air.

    Land.
    The entire material universe exclusive of people and their products.

    Everything physical (other than human beings) which is not the result of human effort is within the economic definition of land. This concept thus includes not merely the dry surface of the earth, but all natural materials, forces and opportunities. The trees in a virgin forest are land; in a cultivated forest they are wealth.

    Radio and TV communications use the radio spectrum, a limited natural resource. Drivers of SUVs and other fuel-burning machinery use the earth's atmosphere as a dump for their greenhouse-gas wastes. To understand the meaning of land as a factor of production, we must conceive and define land broadly, as the entire set of natural opportunities.

    http://www.henrygeorge.org/def2.htm



    Term land Definition: One of four basic categories of resources, or factors of production (the other three are labor, capital, and entrepreneurship). This category includes the natural resources used to produce goods and services, including the land itself; the minerals and nutrients in the ground; the water, wildlife, and vegetation on the surface; and the air above.

    http://glossary.econguru.com/economic-term/land


    So if you have exclusive title over a lake you owe to the community the value of that lake just as you would if you held exclusive title over soil or airspace.

    The taxation does not include the products of labor and you are only taxed for the land you exclude from everyone else.
    Last edited by redbluepill; 08-07-2012 at 08:37 PM.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  15. #284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    The economic definition of land includes water and air.

    Land.
    The entire material universe exclusive of people and their products.

    Everything physical (other than human beings) which is not the result of human effort is within the economic definition of land. This concept thus includes not merely the dry surface of the earth, but all natural materials, forces and opportunities. The trees in a virgin forest are land; in a cultivated forest they are wealth.

    Radio and TV communications use the radio spectrum, a limited natural resource. Drivers of SUVs and other fuel-burning machinery use the earth's atmosphere as a dump for their greenhouse-gas wastes. To understand the meaning of land as a factor of production, we must conceive and define land broadly, as the entire set of natural opportunities.

    http://www.henrygeorge.org/def2.htm



    Term land Definition: One of four basic categories of resources, or factors of production (the other three are labor, capital, and entrepreneurship). This category includes the natural resources used to produce goods and services, including the land itself; the minerals and nutrients in the ground; the water, wildlife, and vegetation on the surface; and the air above.

    http://glossary.econguru.com/economic-term/land


    So if you have exclusive title over a lake you owe to the community the value of that lake just as you would if you held exclusive title over soil or airspace.

    The taxation does not include the products of labor and you are only taxed for the land you exclude from everyone else.
    Who is included in the "community?"

  16. #285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Who is included in the "community?"
    Whoever lives within the jurisdiction of the government that collects the rent.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  17. #286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    Funny, there is no question about Paul's claim to being a 'voluntarist' yet geolibertarians are shot down as socialists. Paul is a voluntarist when it comes to abortion or immigration? Give me a break.
    He is. He said on numerous occasions that he prefers no government in those matters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowlesy View Post
    Americans in general are jedi masters of blaming every other person.

  18. #287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    Whoever lives within the jurisdiction of the government that collects the rent.
    And you trust your government leaders to be honest & fair with their redistribution to all members of the community? Why? Have they ever?

  19. #288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverhandorder View Post
    He is. He said on numerous occasions that he prefers no government in those matters.
    Not to detract from the original thread topic but I'm curious: How has he proposed a government-less system handling abortion?
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  20. #289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    Not to detract from the original thread topic but I'm curious: How has he proposed a government-less system handling abortion?
    He did not. The only thing that he said on abortion is that it needs to be controlled through moral means. Meaning people must be convinced not to go ahead with it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowlesy View Post
    Americans in general are jedi masters of blaming every other person.

  21. #290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    And you trust your government leaders to be honest & fair with their redistribution to all members of the community? Why? Have they ever?
    No I don't trust government leaders. That is the very reason why I am a geolibertarian/minarchist. I also don't see a society run without some form of government. I propose to limit government in all its forms (including in the form of a landlord).
    http://libertythinkers.com/education...r-land-rights/

    The LVT is the best way to do this. We would eliminate all other forms of taxation. It naturally reduces the size of government and it allows the free market to work.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  22. #291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverhandorder View Post
    He did not. The only thing that he said on abortion is that it needs to be controlled through moral means. Meaning people must be convinced not to go ahead with it.
    So he doesn't support legislation (on the state level obviously) to ban it?
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/
    http://freeliberal.com/

  23. #292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    No I don't trust government leaders. That is the very reason why I am a geolibertarian/minarchist. I also don't see a society run without some form of government. I propose to limit government in all its forms (including in the form of a landlord).
    http://libertythinkers.com/education...r-land-rights/

    The LVT is the best way to do this. We would eliminate all other forms of taxation. It naturally reduces the size of government and it allows the free market to work.
    I disagree but as long as we advocate for minarchist state more power to you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowlesy View Post
    Americans in general are jedi masters of blaming every other person.

  24. #293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    The fact that many well known proponents of LVT were minarchists or even anarchists should be a signal to you that it is not a collectivist idea. There is also something called geoanarchism and links have been posted numerous times to it.
    http://www.anti-state.com/geo/foldvary1.html
    I'm referring to the collectivist dogma of "natural liberty rights" to ALL land, all of which is collectivized and considered to be "common wealth". That has nothing to do with LVT, and everything to do with the rationale used here for it, which I reject outright.

    free market 
    noun
    an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free%20market


    Nothing in that definition that is in violation of geoism.
    You said it backwards. We're talking about whether geoism is a violation of the free market, not the other way around. The part I put in bold is the violation, all of which gets obfuscated and rationalized away with tortured logic by geoists (e.g., "land is a natural monopoly", "It doesn't matter whether it's a thousand owners or a single owner", "the supply of land is fixed" -- referring to the total geographical area in existence, not the economic definition of supply -- "LVT doesn't involve regulation", etc.,).

    I do call for an abolishment of zoning laws as does geolibertarian Fred Foldvary: http://www.progress.org/fold189.htm
    I don't care about Fred Foldvary, but if you're for the abolishment of zoning law, great. But that brings me to another point. People raise objections about LVT, and most of the geolibs I encounter pull an Obamacare-like attitude in response. "Establish it first, then we'll work to perfect it." To me that's worthy of a smack-down all by itself. If a Geoist wants to impress me, pave the path to LVT by calling for things that eliminate the objections FIRST. Here's just a few on a list that goes on...

    Universal Individual Exemption? WHY is that not being called for NOW? Where are the LVT advocates when it comes to tax exemption amounts for "good enough land to live on" AS A STARTING POINT. An LVT regime is not required for that.
    Abolish zoning laws? Any reason why that can't be eliminated NOW? The ECO's in favor of LVT would shit themselves in vehement opposition, because for many of them that's the biggest advantage to LVT. Preserve the Earth, and force humanity into an artificially smaller "eco-footprint". Meanwhile, artificial scarcity drives up land values.
    What about enterprise zones, abatements, special exemptions, grants and crony favoritism? Where are all the geoist voices on this when it comes to property taxes - as a matter of principle? Silence. Crickets. Which is not surprising given that some LVT sites actually TOUT enterprise zones, abatements, grants, etc., as USEFUL TOOLS under a geoist regime.

    While the percents have varied throughout history, a pure LVT would be at 100% of the land value. Yes, it would be up to government (or whatever ruling organization in charge) to enact the percentage, but the government wouldn't decide what the value actually is of each piece of land.
    That's precisely how the income tax got it's nasty foot in the door. And like I said, it doesn't really matter if the land value appraisal is nuts on, because the government decides the MULTIPLIER. I don't care about anyone's best intentions, because I live in the real world. I know that with most property taxes, the taxing jurisdictions set their budgets FIRST - tax later accordingly (by adjusting valuations and mill rate multipliers) to meet that budget. The actual "valuation" is just to determine each taxpayers proportion. The amount actually levied (usually by the multiplier, not the valuation) is subject to annual revision.

    The problems with corporatism are a huge reason why I am an LVT advocate. Compared to other forms of taxation it is easy to track and practically impossible to avoid (can't store away land on oversea bank accounts). The wealthy and/or privileged would have difficulty taking advantage of such a system. At least if they do it is not kept hidden from the public.
    Which it usually is. States and local governments are usually under no obligation to publish exemptions and favoritism, and most of the public doesn't think it doesn't affect them, or else isn't any of their business either way. Measure 2 proponents played hell trying to get information on exempted property under FOIA, and most taxing jurisdictions dicked them around, and were not forthcoming. The LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP OF LAND is practically impossible to avoid. That's not the same thing as the tax, as property taxes (which include LVT) are already avoided to the tune of billions.

    Government does not generate land nor would it hand it out under a geoist system. Poor analogy.
    It was a perfect, because while governments do not generate physical land, they can effectively "hand it out" by simply declaring an area an "Enterprise Zone". That's just one way it can "generate land".

    Certain classes already have access to the very best lands. The LVT breaks up the monopoly and makes it easier for the rest to acquire a piece of nature
    The only class divisions I'm concerned about have nothing to do with rich or poor, and everything to do with "unalienable rights" (of free and natural citizens) vs. "licensed, taxable privilege" of entities that do not, and should not EVER, be on par with those who have rights. Not only does LVT not make a distinction - it actually ENCOURAGES privileged entities to SQUEEZE ORDINARY PEOPLE OUT.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 08-08-2012 at 01:43 AM.

  25. #294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    And you trust your government leaders to be honest & fair with their redistribution to all members of the community? Why? Have they ever?
    LVT naturally distributes fairly. The free-market decides that. What the state collects is for services like: police, health, armed forces, education, build economic growth creating infrastructure etc.

    But LVT needs to be set at a level that discourages harmful land speculation. This may mean that the coffers are too full. Then a citizen's dividend may be in order.
    “I have made speeches by the yard on the subject
    of land-value taxation, and you know what a supporter
    I am of that policy.”

    - Winston Churchill


    The only war Winston Churchill ever lost was
    against the British landlords.

    - Fred Harrison (economic writer)

  26. #295
    Member osan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Best Virginia
    Posts
    8,597
    Blog Entries
    45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbluepill View Post
    No I don't trust government leaders. That is the very reason why I am a geolibertarian/minarchist. I also don't see a society run without some form of government.
    Then either you are corrupt and are refusing to publish your full agenda or you simply do not understand one very radical element in the general discussion of human politics: the difference between "government" and governance. The difference is not only glaring, but absolutely central to the definition of the boundaries that determine the qualities of vast proportions of our lives.

    Government, per sé, is most literally a figment of our imaginations. This irrefutable fact escapes nearly every human being walking the earth this day. There is NO SUCH THING as "government" as the belief, concept, and notion most commonly held in the minds of people. It has no substance whatsoever. Zero. Yet, people speak of it and regard it in their minds as if it had an existence independent of humanity. Remove people and where shall one find government? Nowhere, because it exists ONLY within the confines of our skulls and NOWHERE else at any time, under any circumstance, for any reason, by any cause whatsoever. It is fiction. It is bullshit. It is an outright lie.

    But for those in power, this grotesque abuse of cognition through the very deliberate misuse of language to skew the thinking of the rest into accepting the wholly false, if largely tacit, notion of government as an institution possessing the nonexistent character and quality of an independent existence has served them admirably. This accomplishment represents the single greatest fait accompli in all of recorded human history. It appears, in fact, that it may well prove the coupe de grace for the ruling class over all human freedom. To accept this fiction, this utterly ridiculous nonsense, is to willfully acquiesce to being another's fool; to build around yourself a prison of someone else's design and behest, but at your will and agreement.

    The problem with government-as-institution is that the moment one accepts its literal, material existence, the sky becomes the limit for those in power in terms of the qualities and characteristics which that entity may display and possess. This is clearly betrayed in expressions such as, "government has the power to..." and worse yet, "government has the right to..." How can a concept, a materially nonexistent entity have​ anything? A few more examples of this dangerous abuse of language and thought:
    • The state has the right...
    • The state holds an overwhelming interest...
    • The people have the right... (here, "the people" meaning monobloc populations and not individuals)
    • Society has the right...
    All of these outright lies and the many I have not listed have been very deliberately designed to gain the voluntary compliance of the vast majority of persons over whom those in power presume to rule. Note I wrote "rule", rather than "govern", the former leaving no possibility of fair action in the broader context, whereas the latter leaves that door ajar a slight crack, at least in principle.

    Now compare all of that with the notion of governance, which by its very linguistic structure connotes no notion of an extant object but solely that of a function to be discharged by individuals. There is nothing in principle there that connotes the greater authority of one individual over that of another. Vis-a-vis "government", if we remove all humanity from the earth save one, governance still remains, all else equal such as rationality and an interest in continued life. A single, solitary human being will govern himself. The function is built into all nominally intact and healthy living organisms and this fact is readily established with even the most casual observation of any manner of life form.

    Governance, therefore, is organic, whereas government is not only purely synthetic, but dangerously mal-formed in the minds of most people.

    propose to limit government in all its forms (including in the form of a landlord).
    EDIT: And just for the record, this is a steaming pile of claptrap. A landlord is not government. What you write tacitly presupposes several things. Firstly, it implies that private contracts are invalid. Secondly, it implies that private property is invalid. Thirdly, it implies that any person ostensibly in ownership of real property is evil. Fourthly, it implies that any such a person promotes himself to a status of even greater evil for having not only the temerity to charge rent to another for making some use of that property, but that he dares to place conditions upon the renter such that his property is not brought to destruction or other harm. Fifthly: it implies that there are people "out there" somewhere holding the authority to determine HOW MUCH property any given person may hold and that they hold it at the pleasure of others, further assassinating the notion of private property.

    Those are the very direct implications of what you have written, above. You are no friend of liberty. Quite the opposite, judging by this embarrassingly flawed diatribe of yours.

    EDIT cont.: This page chokes to death on its own fail in the very first paragraph. The author was perhaps an idiot? At best, he had less than zero understanding of that which constitutes proper liberty. The article is poorly reasoned and builds upon rotten assumptions. Landlords are already limited. It is called "criminal law" as well as the laws of contracts. If you do not like the conditions a landlord places upon your living in his house, then go elsewhere. You are not entitled to reside there. And all the nonsense about "per capita value" and the three conditions... Jesus, what stupidity. His conflation of of Spooner's valid and correct observations about government with that of the landlord is precious in its cute idiocy. If this is the sort of bullshit to which you subscribe, knock yourself out, but you would be far happier at http://revleft.com I recommend you go find yourself a comfy home there.

    If that is the libertarian position, count me out.

    END ADDED EDITS

    Just as the socialist/communist/progressive ideal may be well intended but disastrously flawed in design, so may we say is the case here. Good intentions count for nothing whatsoever when the results imposed upon others against their wills are rotten.

    This is simply the other side of the same counterfeit coin, granted with a prettier face and a greater level of rational thought behind it. The moment you elevate a subset of a population above the rest, absolutely anything may result. The act itself - nay the mere ascent to it opens the door wide in principle for tyranny of any form and degree you may care to name. The only way to avoid this, and even then it is a dicey deal, is to eliminate all government in favor of governance. The difference is fundamental and for anyone who understands it properly, it is not subtle but rather staggering not only in the basic structures in terms of concept, but in the materially substantive implications.

    Anarchy means absence of a ruler, not of governance. No rational person wishes an absence of governance as this would in principle allow for the worst chaos imaginable. The Lord Of The Flies would rise up to rule and life would be worse than shit. And that is pretty much what we have today with a gang calling itself "government" assuming authority over ever growing territory in our lives. Minarchism does NOTHING to solve this in principle and is, therefore, a non-starter in its fundamental equivalence to all other rotten forms of despotic control.

    Either people are equal in terms of their general and inborn claims to life (i.e. equal in their fundamental rights) or they are not. There is NOTHING in between these possibilities. In this respect, equality is absolutely and purely discrete and bivalent. It is a true and fundamental dichotomy that cannot be escaped by anyone at any time, by any means, or for any reason whatsoever. It is as fundamental to the human fabric as gravity is to that of the observable universe.

    The LVT is the best way to do this. We would eliminate all other forms of taxation. It naturally reduces the size of government and it allows the free market to work.
    Bullshit. Taxation is theft; purely; simply, absolutely. You are arguing for your flavor of pretty slavery.

    Fail.

    Epically.

    Catastrophically.

    Terminally.
    Last edited by osan; 08-09-2012 at 08:49 AM.
    --

    http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
    http://turnyourbackonthem.wordpress.com

    ignominia et contemptum tyrannis

    Habeo excelsum artem; afflixerim cum crudelitate illis qui laedas me

    Shelley's thinly veiled warning to tyrants:

    The monster saw my determination in my face and gnashed his teeth in the impotence of anger. "Shall each man," cried he, "find a wife for his bosom, and each beast have his mate, and I be alone? I had feelings of affection, and they were requited by detestation and scorn. Man! You may hate, but beware! Your hours will pass in dread and misery, and soon the bolt will fall which must ravish from you your happiness forever. Are you to be happy while I grovel in the intensity of my wretchedness? You can blast my other passions, but revenge remains--revenge, henceforth dearer than light or food! I may die, but first you, my tyrant and tormentor, shall curse the sun that gazes on your misery. Beware, for I am fearless and therefore powerful. I will watch with the wiliness of a snake, that I may sting with its venom. Man, you shall repent of the injuries you inflict.”

  27. #296
    Member osan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Best Virginia
    Posts
    8,597
    Blog Entries
    45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post

    I don't care about Fred Foldvary
    Hungarians are not noted for their political savvy. Their history says it all. Most embarrassingly.

    People raise objections about LVT, and most of the geolibs I encounter pull an Obamacare-like attitude in response. "Establish it first, then we'll work to perfect it." To me that's worthy of a smack-down all by itself. If a Geoist wants to impress me, pave the path to LVT by calling for things that eliminate the objections FIRST.
    This has got to be one of the best things I've ever read.

    I heartily recommend everyone give rep for this.
    --

    http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
    http://turnyourbackonthem.wordpress.com

    ignominia et contemptum tyrannis

    Habeo excelsum artem; afflixerim cum crudelitate illis qui laedas me

    Shelley's thinly veiled warning to tyrants:

    The monster saw my determination in my face and gnashed his teeth in the impotence of anger. "Shall each man," cried he, "find a wife for his bosom, and each beast have his mate, and I be alone? I had feelings of affection, and they were requited by detestation and scorn. Man! You may hate, but beware! Your hours will pass in dread and misery, and soon the bolt will fall which must ravish from you your happiness forever. Are you to be happy while I grovel in the intensity of my wretchedness? You can blast my other passions, but revenge remains--revenge, henceforth dearer than light or food! I may die, but first you, my tyrant and tormentor, shall curse the sun that gazes on your misery. Beware, for I am fearless and therefore powerful. I will watch with the wiliness of a snake, that I may sting with its venom. Man, you shall repent of the injuries you inflict.”

  28. #297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Hungarians are not noted for their political savvy.
    Racist comment

    < snip the rest, not worth it after that >
    “I have made speeches by the yard on the subject
    of land-value taxation, and you know what a supporter
    I am of that policy.”

    - Winston Churchill


    The only war Winston Churchill ever lost was
    against the British landlords.

    - Fred Harrison (economic writer)

  29. #298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Bullshit. Taxation is theft; purely; simply, absolutely. You are arguing for your flavor of pretty slavery.
    How do you propose the government funds the services? I do agree that taxation is theft, that is why LVT scores well. It reclaims community created wealth for community services, leaving private wealth in private pockets. Perfect. It also charges for extraction of the land's resources - again leaving private wealth in private pockets.

    It also stops a lot of free-loading.
    “I have made speeches by the yard on the subject
    of land-value taxation, and you know what a supporter
    I am of that policy.”

    - Winston Churchill


    The only war Winston Churchill ever lost was
    against the British landlords.

    - Fred Harrison (economic writer)

  30. #299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    I'm referring to the collectivist dogma of "natural liberty rights" to ALL land, all of which is collectivized and considered to be "common wealth". That has nothing to do with LVT, and everything to do with the rationale used here for it, which I reject outright.
    Land and its resources ARE common wealth. Look up sovereignty. The problem is that private individuals and concerns are appropriating common wealth. This means the state needs to revert to stealing private wealth, via income, sales taxes, etc, to fund common services.

    Best to to use common wealth to fund common services. Simple.

    You should read Fred Foldvary.
    Last edited by EcoWarrier; 08-08-2012 at 10:41 AM.
    “I have made speeches by the yard on the subject
    of land-value taxation, and you know what a supporter
    I am of that policy.”

    - Winston Churchill


    The only war Winston Churchill ever lost was
    against the British landlords.

    - Fred Harrison (economic writer)

  31. #300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EcoWarrier View Post
    LVT naturally distributes fairly. The free-market decides that. What the state collects is for services like: police, health, armed forces, education, build economic growth creating infrastructure etc.
    You make no sense. Markets under control of the State is not a free-market.

    Quote Originally Posted by EcoWarrier View Post
    But LVT needs to be set at a level that discourages harmful land speculation.
    Needs to be set by whom? Wise overlords?

    Quote Originally Posted by EcoWarrier View Post
    This may mean that the coffers are too full. Then a citizen's dividend may be in order.
    Or they could just pass out bonuses to all the wise overlords who are policing, medicating, militarizing, indoctrinating, planning the economy and their job creating infastructure contractor friends ... kind of exactly like they do today.

Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... 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
  •