We Urgently Need To Revert To Classical Economics

[redbluepill]

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?

[silverhandorder]

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.

[Steven Douglas]

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.

[EcoWarrier]

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.

[osan]

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.

http://libertythinkers.com/education...r-land-rights/

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.

[osan]

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.

[EcoWarrier]

Hungarians are not noted for their political savvy.

Racist comment

< snip the rest, not worth it after that >

[EcoWarrier]

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.

[EcoWarrier]

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.

[Travlyr]

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.

But LVT needs to be set at a level that discourages harmful land speculation.

Needs to be set by whom? Wise overlords?

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.