We Urgently Need To Revert To Classical Economics

[Zippyjuan]

It is the landowner who drains the lifeblood from the throats of the productive; and many of the victims are in turn themselves recruited as evil, predatory, parasitic vampires by buying land in order to avoid being victimized permanently.

What an amazingly accurate analogy. Thank you.

I see. Owning land is evil. Should everybody have equal access to all land? Should they be able to use that land for whatever they see fit? Who should decide what is the best use for a particular piece of land? Should the locals all vote on it? Should the government dictate it? Jack want to build a house. Tom wants to farm. Jim wants a stripmine. All would produce economic benefits. Can I prevent you from doing something on the land I own? Wait- under LTV you can't own land. It belongs to "society". Landowners are apparently incapable of using land in benefical ways since they are "taking from society" by virtue of owning. When you own something, you are more likely to take care of it and try to use it in a beneficial manner. If nobody owns it, it tends to get abused and value decreased.

Curious- does anybody in your family own property? If they did, would you also consider them parasites?

[Steven Douglas]

Collective property does not equal common property. Another point of confusion for the anti-geoists.

Point of major, extreme disagreement, not confusion. If there is a point of confusion, it originates from the reality-obfuscating geoists who argue from their normatives as if they were making positive statements of fact. The disagreement (certainly not confusion) comes from the fact that geoists see ALL LAND, even the entire area and internal volume of the Earth, as "common property". That's not a point of distinction. That's ENTRAINMENT. Full encapsulation, as a decidedly collectivist imaginary problem is met with an equally collectivist proposed solution.

What we should be addressing is private property vs common property vs collective property. Geoists are clear on the difference between the three.

Geoist are crystal "clear", but only on THEIR definitions, their philosophical differences with others, and how THEY see those three. You are trying to state these definitions as if they were positive statements of fact, when in fact they are NORMATIVES ONLY. Should. Ought.

So let's start with what you say is the geoist definition for Private Property.

Private property = The fruits of one's labor.

Bullshit. Substitute "includes" for the equal sign and you'll be closer to the truth. Property and property rights are legal concepts under any political or economic regime, and ANYTHING can be made private property. The geoist criterion for what they feel ought to be legally/politically defined and recognized as private property is a NORMATIVE argument that I reject outright, just as I reject Marx' Labor Theory of Value.

Private property should certainly include the fruits of one's labor as a subset, but it is not, nor should it ever be, limited thereto. Private property is a matter of title and property rights of ownership only. As such it can be anything, and does NOT REQUIRE that it be "earned", or "the result of productivity", or "the fruits of anyone's labor", or even traceable thereto. For more on that see the "The Rap Against Unearned Riches".

For me, exclusive use of land, and the power to dispose of it freely, is the equal and unalienable right of all individuals on Earth. But that so-called "equal right" does not mean equal value, because value is entirely subjective, and land is not fungible. Furthermore, that equal right to a claim to exclusive private ownership of land by individuals DOES NOT EXTEND TO OTHER PEOPLE'S exercise of those same rights.

Common property = That which is created by nature which we all have an equal right to.

Once again, geoists want that to include "all land" (among other scarce resources) - which means the entire surface area of the Earth, and literally everything below! For geoists, there isn't a square inch of the Earth that you can occupy where everyone else cannot consider themselves as also having an equal right thereto. BULLSHIT. You can toss that agrarian hunter-gatherer collectivist notion in the waste bin as well. Not the definition of common property (legitimate uses of which would include public roads, public parks, public infrastructure, etc.,), but rather what geoists want included in that definition (namely the whole fucking Earth!).

Collective property = That which the state claims.

That's where your semantics-dicing question begging comes into play.

If all land on Earth is considered common property, there is no land that can be anything else. Not unless it is a SUBSET OF COMMON PROPERTY -- to which everyone supposedly has an equal right.

And yet the moment someone erected a hut on what was previously common land, it ceased to be "common" (commonly used), and began to be exclusive to that hut owner. And since everyone is presumed to dwell exclusively in a hut of their own, nobody can say that they are deprived, based on land that was privately appropriated and removed from the commons. There is no such thing as common property in these lands after they are settled on without the state claiming it as such (on behalf of "the commons"). It is only AFTERWARD, after the state claims ALL LAND -- including every parcel of residential land with every little hut erected thereon, that it is placed under this Common Property umbrella. Only then are other distinctions made regarding allocation and usage -- by the state.

It used to be that "common land" was merely land that was equally accessible by the public, who used it in common. A road is a perfect example of common land, like common grazing pastures, public parks and such. Geoists want that to encompass EVERYTHING where land is concerned, from which all other land becomes a subset. Now we need other words for subsets of "common property" (in land), to distinguish between publicly accessible land, state-only land, privately used land, agricultural, and industrial land, and whatever other "usage".

The fact that the state has the power and authority to say which parcels of common land (read=ALL land within its jurisdiction) are for private usage, government usage, public property for public access, etc., which means that common property is all essentially either a) state property and/or b) "community owned" property, with the state acting as executor on behalf of some collective, nebulous corporeal abstraction called "community".

Marxists and most Anti-Marxists are not so clear (article for that topic posted a couple times).

You keep saying this as if it's a clarity issue, or a simple matter of misunderstanding or mis-usage of terms. It's not. It's all matters of fundamental disagreement regardless of the terms used. A rose by any other name...

When asking a typical royal libertarian on private property in land they simply say "Well its theirs because they bought it from the "original owner." How do we determine who is the owner of the land? Since it is not created we must make arbitrary requirements, like "if you homestead for an x number of years" or "if you have this title issued by x." Some royal libertarians will go so far as to say whoever steps on the land first has rightful ownership over everything to the horizon (and beyond).

I am not a so-called (by geoists) "royal libertarian", because I am not arguing that labor mixed with land is what makes it property. That might be used as an argument to strengthen a claim, but I'm not arguing that such criteria are even required, any more than you make that same claim on behalf of everyone. When you say that everyone has an equal right to what nature created, I agree, albeit with enormous differences. One of those is differences is that those rights are not COLLECTIVIZED - but never realized as first principles. Private property rights (not privileges) in land is all about private exclusivity, as rights that remain individualized AT ALL TIMES. These rights do not extend to ALL LAND, regardless of proximity to the individual, so the only thing that needs to be reconciled is whether someone is being deprived of the opportunity to own land -- not whether the state is in charge of renting out collectivized "Common Rights" as conditional privileges to highest bidders, as if that reconciled any fucking thing at all!

To summarize, common property does not, should not, include the entire land area and internal volume of the Earth. Furthermore, I argue that land should be privately owned, as private property, as a matter of right (as opposed to privilege). Lastly, I argue that land, or anything other resource that actually is considered common property (roads, parks, infrastructure, etc.,) should never be subject to profit or rent-seeking by anyone, including the state, which should NEVER behave as a commercial enterprise.

Well that empty lot some landowner holds smack dab in the middle of the city isn't rising in value because of any productivity of his own.

Likewise with the Microsoft stock I BOUGHT AND OWN. Likewise with the GOLD AND SILVER I FUCKING OWN. And the list goes on, ad nauseam. Any increases in their value are not due to any productivity of my own, but that fact does not make ANYONE else entitled -- unless you really are a Marxist at heart, and believe in the labor theory of value. Otherwise I OWN THOSE INCREASES IN VALUE of whatever it is I own, without regard to my lack of "productivity" influence on that increase.

And there is another basis: The fact that land (unlike labor and capital) cannot be traced back to an original creator.

A false basis, your criterion, based on your Theory of Labor and Capital, and all its normative underpinnings, which are meaningless to me.

Even the Austrian economists believe there is in fact common property and that it is distinguishable from private property or property of the government.

And so I. ::: setting a match to your straw man in the shape of a red herring :::

Now ask for a show of hands of those same Austrians who believe that common property should be defined as ALL LAND, AREA AND UNIMPROVED VOLUME, of the Earth.

No stateless civilization has ever existed.

::: setting fire to another straw man :::

Who said anything about a stateless civilization. I want a state, just for different reasons, serving very different purposes than your ideal, and decidedly collectivist vision.

[Roy L]

I see. Owning land is evil.

Correct. Landowning is, in fact, the greatest evil in the history of the world.

Should everybody have equal access to all land?

No, but they do have a right to equal access to all land. The problem LVT solves is to reconcile that right with the producer's right to own fixed improvements. Landowning was a crude, quick and dirty solution to that problem, but we now know LVT is a far better solution.

Should they be able to use that land for whatever they see fit?

Within the constraints set by the community to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all.

Who should decide what is the best use for a particular piece of land?

The market.

Should the locals all vote on it?

They can vote on what uses are consistent with how they want to use neighboring land, but voting can't determine the best use.

Should the government dictate it?

Only when it is government that is going to use it, such as for a military base, public building, water supply system, etc.

Jack want to build a house. Tom wants to farm. Jim wants a stripmine. All would produce economic benefits.

Who is willing to pay the most to exclude others from it?

Can I prevent you from doing something on the land I own?

Sure. Just compensate me justly for removing my liberty to do so.

Wait- under LTV you can't own land.

You can own it in name and enjoy secure tenure. You just can't remove others' rights to use it without making just compensation.

It belongs to "society".

All have equal rights to use it, but it "belongs" to no one.

Landowners are apparently incapable of using land in benefical ways since they are "taking from society" by virtue of owning.

The landowner qua landowner is a pure parasite and does not use the land or contribute to society in any way whatever. The fact that someone who owns land is also doing other things -- he may be a dentist, he may lead a Boy Scout troop, etc. -- does not and cannot alter the purely parasitic character of his role as landowner.

When you own something, you are more likely to take care of it and try to use it in a beneficial manner.

There are thousands of vacant lots in every major city in America that prove you wrong.

If nobody owns it, it tends to get abused and value decreased.

True, but only if nobody is managing it, either. Nobody owns the oceans or the atmosphere, so governments have stepped in to manage those common resources to secure the equal rights of all to use them, and ensure no one abuses them excessively. An early decision by international treaty not to dump nuclear waste in the oceans, for example, has kept radioactive contamination out of seafood. Likewise, the nuclear test ban treaty kept radioactive fallout out of the atmosphere.

Curious- does anybody in your family own property?

Of course. And I have been a landlord. I don't own land now because I think it is still a bad time to own in my area, but I anticipate owning and probably being a landlord again sometime in the next few years.

If they did, would you also consider them parasites?

In their capacity as landowners, they are pure parasites. Of course, they also do other things that are not parasitic. But those things are not part of being a landowner.

[Roy L]

If there is a point of confusion, it originates from the reality-obfuscating geoists who argue from their normatives as if they were making positive statements of fact.

Lie. We identify positive facts. They are merely facts that you have to refuse to know, as you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil. So you call them "normative," which is actually just your way of saying, "objectively true and indisputable, but incompatible with landowner privilege."

The disagreement (certainly not confusion) comes from the fact that geoists see ALL LAND, even the entire area and internal volume of the Earth, as "common property". That's not a point of distinction. That's ENTRAINMENT. Full encapsulation, as a decidedly collectivist imaginary problem is met with an equally collectivist proposed solution.

No. The problem is neither "collectivist" (which, when you use the term, just means, "poopypants") nor imaginary, as proved by the effective enslavement of the landless in every country that has private landowning but not massive government intercession on behalf of the landless.

Geoist are crystal "clear", but only on THEIR definitions, their philosophical differences with others, and how THEY see those three. You are trying to state these definitions as if they were positive statements of fact, when in fact they are NORMATIVES ONLY. Should. Ought.

See above re what you call, "normatives."

Property and property rights are legal concepts under any political or economic regime, and ANYTHING can be made private property.

Legalistic fallacy. Law is made to recognize property that would exist without law, not create it out of whole cloth.

The geoist criterion for what they feel ought to be legally/politically defined and recognized as private property is a NORMATIVE argument that I reject outright, just as I reject Marx' Labor Theory of Value.

You reject the concept of equal human rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor. Correct. You do not believe in any human rights to life or liberty, only in the landowner's "right" to enslave and murder others by appropriating as "private property" the natural resources they need to survive.

Private property should certainly include the fruits of one's labor as a subset, but it is not, nor should it ever be, limited thereto.

How normative of you.

In fact, private property WAS limited to the fruits of labor until greedy, evil parasites figured out that they could enslave the productive by claiming to own what nature provided for all.

Private property is a matter of title and property rights of ownership only.

Legalistic fallacy.

As such it can be anything, and does NOT REQUIRE that it be "earned", or "the result of productivity", or "the fruits of anyone's labor", or even traceable thereto. For more on that see the "The Rap Against Unearned Riches".

Stupid, dishonest and evil rationalization of theft by the privileged.

For me, exclusive use of land, and the power to dispose of it freely, is the equal and unalienable right of all individuals on Earth.

Self-contradiction. The right cannot be equal as the land is not equal. And exclusive use + power of disposition will lead to all land on earth being owned by a subset of the earth's population, and the elimination of the alleged "inalienable" right to exclusive use for all the other people.

But that so-called "equal right" does not mean equal value, because value is entirely subjective, and land is not fungible.

Absurdities intended to enable atrocities.

Furthermore, that equal right to a claim to exclusive private ownership of land by individuals DOES NOT EXTEND TO OTHER PEOPLE'S exercise of those same rights.

Absurdity intended to enable atrocity.

For geoists, there isn't a square inch of the Earth that you can occupy where everyone else cannot consider themselves as also having an equal right thereto.

What gives you a right to it but not them? I thought rights were equal.

You can toss that agrarian hunter-gatherer

Bone-headed oxymoron.

poopypants notion in the waste bin as well. Not the definition of common property (legitimate uses of which would include public roads, public parks, public infrastructure, etc.,), but rather what geoists want included in that definition (namely the whole fucking Earth!).

By what right do you remove anyone else's rights to use any part of the whole earth?

That's where your semantics-dicing question begging comes into play.

You are the one begging the question.

If all land on Earth is considered common property, there is no land that can be anything else. Not unless it is a SUBSET OF COMMON PROPERTY -- to which everyone supposedly has an equal right.

And yet the moment someone erected a hut on what was previously common land, it ceased to be "common" (commonly used), and began to be exclusive to that hut owner. And since everyone is presumed to dwell exclusively in a hut of their own, nobody can say that they are deprived, based on land that was privately appropriated and removed from the commons. There is no such thing as common property in these lands after they are settled on without the state claiming it as such (on behalf of "the commons").

Wrong again. It is still common property, just as the land I temporarily occupy with my body wherever I go is still common property. We all just have equal rights to occupy space with our bodies, because we can't exist any other way. Similarly, we all have rights to occupy land temporarily with our dwellings -- a right you would remove by making land into private property, but I would secure through the UIE.

It is only AFTERWARD, after the state claims ALL LAND -- including every parcel of residential land with every little hut erected thereon, that it is placed under this Common Property umbrella. Only then are other distinctions made regarding allocation and usage -- by the state.

Flat false. I have corrected you on this before. Just as occupation of space by one's body confers no permanent title to that space, neither does occupation of an area by one's dwelling. One can use that area as long as one dwells there, but once you leave, it's not yours any more. It's therefore still common property.

It used to be that "common land" was merely land that was equally accessible by the public, who used it in common. A road is a perfect example of common land, like common grazing pastures, public parks and such. Geoists want that to encompass EVERYTHING where land is concerned, from which all other land becomes a subset.

That is how land is, by its nature, and how it always was before greedy, evil parasites figured out a way to steal it with lawyers' help.

You keep saying this as if it's a clarity issue, or a simple matter of misunderstanding or mis-usage of terms. It's not. It's all matters of fundamental disagreement regardless of the terms used. A rose by any other name...

Right. Socialists and capitalists are not just misusing terms but ERASING CONCEPTS so that they can't even be thought about.

I am not a so-called (by geoists) "royal libertarian",

Right. The more accurate term I prefer is "feudal libertarian," because the actual system you favor and advocate is feudalism: government by private landowner.

When you say that everyone has an equal right to what nature created, I agree, albeit with enormous differences.

Differences like, for Steven, "equal rights to ownership of nature as property" meaning, "I have a right to own nature as my property, and you have an equal right to be owned as my property."

One of those is differences is that those rights are not COLLECTIVIZED - but never realized as first principles. Private property rights (not privileges) in land is all about private exclusivity, as rights that remain individualized AT ALL TIMES. These rights do not extend to ALL LAND, regardless of proximity to the individual, so the only thing that needs to be reconciled is whether someone is being deprived of the opportunity to own land

Meaningless, self-contradictory gibberish.

-- not whether the state is in charge of renting out collectivized "Common Rights" as conditional privileges to highest bidders, as if that reconciled any fucking thing at all!

It clearly reconciles the liberty rights of land users with the property rights of land improvers.

To summarize, common property does not, should not, include the entire land area and internal volume of the Earth.

'Cause you wants to own dat $#!+.

Furthermore, I argue that land should be privately owned, as private property, as a matter of right (as opposed to privilege).

But that can't happen, because it is inherently a matter of privilege.

Lastly, I argue that land, or anything other resource that actually is considered common property (roads, parks, infrastructure, etc.,) should never be subject to profit or rent-seeking by anyone, including the state, which should NEVER behave as a commercial enterprise.

No, you argue no such thing. You merely claim it, with no supporting facts, logic, evidence, or arguments of any kind.

Likewise with the Microsoft stock I BOUGHT AND OWN. Likewise with the GOLD AND SILVER I FUCKING OWN.

Wrong. Flat, outright wrong.

When you buy stock, or products of labor like gold and silver, you are paying the creator of the value (or indirectly, paying someone who paid someone who paid the creator, etc. -- the indirectness of the payment doesn't matter) for creating that value. When you buy land, by contrast, the payment never goes back to the creator of the value. It only goes to a previous thief who was privileged to TAKE the value WITHOUT paying its creators for it.

And the list goes on, ad nauseam. Any increases in their value are not due to any productivity of my own,

But it was your CONTRIBUTION to productivity -- your payment for it to its creator -- that gave the value to the stock or gold or silver, but NOT to the LAND.

but that fact does not make ANYONE else entitled -- unless you really are a Marxist at heart, and believe in the labor theory of value. Otherwise I OWN THOSE INCREASES IN VALUE of whatever it is I own, without regard to my lack of "productivity" influence on that increase.

No. There is a difference between paying a producer to produce and paying a parasite for his place on the host.

A false basis, your criterion, based on your Theory of Labor and Capital, and all its normative underpinnings, which are meaningless to me.

We know facts and morality are meaningless to you.

Who said anything about a stateless civilization. I want a state, just for different reasons, serving very different purposes than your ideal, and decidedly collectivist vision.

Right. You want a state that empowers you to rob, enslave and murder others for your own unearned profit.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Government shouldn't spend money.
Therefore government has no need to tax.
Therefore LVT is obsolete.

[Steven Douglas]

Law is made to recognize property that would exist without law, not create it out of whole cloth.

Cool. Like my strawbale hut and the land upon which it rests. All personal, private property. Everyone else should be able to do likewise, and everyone else can fuck off from everyone else. No deprivation required.

You reject the concept of equal human rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor.

No, I reject your concept of equal human rights to other peoples' life, liberty and property in the fruits of their labor via the pernicious geoist doctrine that the entire earth is "Common Property".

You do not believe in any human rights to life or liberty, only in the landowner's "right" to enslave and murder others by appropriating as "private property" the natural resources they need to survive.

Nobody else needs the land under my hut to survive. So long as there is enough land available for their own hut, and their own land to build it on, they can all fuck off. You especially.

How normative of you.

Correct, and I am the ONLY one between us that recognizes and acknowledges that we're all making nothing but normative arguments about what we think "should/ought" to be. You're the only one who fails to see it, but that's because you're Roy-centric (everything in your mind is objective -- to you), and you lack the common sense required for reason and logic to have any meaning.

In fact, private property WAS limited to the fruits of labor until greedy, evil parasites figured out that they could enslave the productive by claiming to own what nature provided for all.

Wrong. Private property was anything privately secured for exclusive possession and use, and which excludes others from possession and/or use. That was not constrained or limited to the fruits of labor. A caveman finds a small cave, big enough for a large family only - and everyone else can fuck off. It's his property now, and he owes nothing to others for it. He didn't construct it, it did not come about as result of the fruits of his labor, and in fact his only labor might be just defending it from intruders. It is a place that is provided by nature, where he can live, sleep, eat, and store the fruits of his labors. And you can fuck off. Find your own cave. Build your own hut. Your survival need not depend on HIS cave.

His cave, like my hut, and all the land upon which it rests, is property, not because of the labor or materials required to build it, but because of the human requirement for exclusive use of land upon which every human requires for life, and also the security on that land required to enable the pursuit of life, liberty and other property.

When he leaves his cave to go hunt and gather, his mate and brothers and uncles and their mates are left behind to guard it. That's the only "state" that exists. That family, or tribe. If they all left the cave, it would revert to common property -- not "still be" common property. But only for a time, until someone else claimed it and defended it as their own. This means that "common property" only really meant, in that case, "available for exclusive use as private property".

Comes now another family. They come in peace, with lots of hides and other cool shit to trade with. The leader says, "I'll give you all my hides, horses and lots of other cool shit if you'll stop defending your cave and leave, so that my family can occupy and defend this cave instead of you." The leader of the cave tribe says, "I can use this cool shit as we find another place I know about north of here. So an agreement is struck, and a land sale takes place. Between two states -- TWO FAMILIES.

For me, exclusive use of land, and the power to dispose of it freely, is the equal and unalienable right of all individuals on Earth.

Self contradiction. The right cannot be equal as the land is not equal.

You're the only one who is self-contradicted. Labor and capital are not equal either, and yet the right to acquire both exist. Equally. Not to the right to the fucking amount! Remove your idiotic, self-contradictory thought that THE ENTIRE EARTH is "common property", and you'll see that it applies equally to land, which is no more equal in parceled existence than capital and labor are.

And exclusive use + power of disposition will lead to all land on earth being owned by a subset of the earth's population, and the elimination of the alleged "inalienable" right to exclusive use for all the other people.

That would only be true if you made no distinction (and you don't --your fatal flaw), between privileged entities and/or privileged behavior (like that of a foreigners, corporations, and outright land speculators, foreign and domestic) and the actual rights of individual Citizens who are none of the foregoing. Buying up 4,000 acres of land for a land development project is privileged behavior. Buying a parcel of residential land upon which to live is not. Apply LVT (and anything else) exclusively to those privileged entities, and the rights of individuals to be secure in their ownership of land as a matter of right, and free of forced displacement, interference or foreign invasion, can be fully reconciled. In that way, LVT can be a great tool for funding government and reconciling actual rights at the same time - if and when it is properly applied to the appropriate entities.

Absurdities intended to enable atrocities.

Your absurdities, like all leftist, collectivist, blanket absurdities, would enable unintended atrocities.

For geoists, there isn't a square inch of the Earth that you can occupy where everyone else cannot consider themselves as also having an equal right thereto.

What gives you a right to it but not them? I thought rights were equal.

You're the only one trying to reconcile an artificial absurdity (the whole Earth = Common Property).

When you say "it" you mean any part of THE WHOLE EARTH that is held exclusively as private property. I would not be so arrogant, so stupid, as to presume a right of access to the whole Earth, because I am wise enough to recognize, at the very least, that there are billions of people living here already, who have an unalienable right to be secure in their claim on at least enough land to live on. There is at least SOME land on Earth which is NOT COMMON PROPERTY, for which I DO NOT, SHOULD NOT, HAVE AN EQUAL RIGHT.

By what right do you remove anyone else's rights to use any part of the whole earth?

First, by a full-on rejection of your absurd, bizarre premise that the whole of the Earth is common property, to which everyone has a perpetual ongoing equal liberty right of access -- even to land that is already exclusively in use and supporting life already. That eliminates all need to reconcile your self-contradictory "right" that does not, and should not, exist in the first place.

It is still common property, just as the land I temporarily occupy with my body wherever I go is still common property.

That's your collectivist normative, based on a fatally flawed assumption. When you're home sleeping, that's not common property. When you're on the road traveling from city to city, that road is common property.

We all just have equal rights to occupy space with our bodies, because we can't exist any other way.

Yes. And not as nomads or vagabonds either. You can actually build a hut, and exclude everyone therefrom, including the land upon which it rests, without depriving anyone of ANYTHING beyond what someone else already had a right to for their life, their existence. Your neighbors can do likewise, without you suffering any deprivation, given that you don't need THEIR SPACE to live, and THEY DON'T REQUIRE YOURS. Only their own.

Similarly, we all have rights to occupy land temporarily with our dwellings -- a right you would remove by making land into private property, but I would secure through the UIE.

Replace "temporarily" with "exclusively", given that is the actual requirement, as a matter of right regardless how temporarily or fleeting it may be, and regardless how small that area might be. That exclusive occupancy of land space for living is a requirement for life, and therefore a matter of right, not privilege.

You want the emphasis placed on "temporarily", not exclusively, because your "The Whole Earth Is Common Property" means that even a poor bastard taking up sleeping space, however small, is automatically depriving EVERYONE, in that moment, of their "equal right" to that very space. That's not only false, it's fucking insane. We're not hunter-gatherers, nomads and vagabonds. When you occupy land for the purpose of simply sleeping and eating, you do so exclusively. Everyone can fuck off from your sleeping quarters, which you and your family occupy EXCLUSIVELY, as a matter of right, because no matter how temporary the need (read=every night of your life), EXCLUSIVITY is an absolute physical requirement.

Private property in land (to those who actually have unalienable rights to exclusive occupancy, and therefore possession) ensures that we are not nomads and vagabonds, whose right to exclusive occupancy of land, however temporary, can be alienated and abrogated by others -- all because of superior payment to the state. Under equally and unconditionally applied LVT, not only can the right of exclusive occupancy FOR THAT SPACE be obtained by superior payment to the state, it can be obtained even by a foreigner, corporate, or other privileged entity, which has NO SUCH RIGHT.

So you're not reconciling unalienable rights at all. You're converting rights to privileges and renting them out to all paying entities, foreign and domestic, individual and collective, regardless of privileges or rights status under the law. You don't give a shit, everyone is tossed into the mix as if they were all created equal. Whichever entity pays the state the most is entitled to all the best. That's not just statism, that's fascism; whatever is best for the state (which you in turn think will do whatever is best for the people).

Your UIE proposal is one of the few geoist acknowledgements that LVT, in and of itself, does not reconcile the problem of the landless, and their so-called equal liberty rights to access and use of any land on Earth. The only thing you secured was funding for the state, and a rule by which ANY PAYING ENTITY (including those acting as a matter of privilege only) can legally displace the poor. Enter your UIE "exemption amount/credit" -- the reconciliation bone you want thrown out to everyone, as if that somehow "reconciled" everything.

But that brings us full circle to the original problem. Party A enjoys exclusive access to a "SUPERIOR" parcel of land, which parcel you claim all other persons have an equal right of access. You didn't secure OR reconcile their fucking access to that parcel of land -- not through LVT, and not through the UIE. They still don't have access to that land! Which makes perfect sense, due to the absurdity of your original and self-contradictory claim of "equal right of access", because everybody cannot physically access the same land at the same time! Therefore a MANY-TO-ONE "COMMON PROPERTY" CLAIM cannot be considered a right, and cannot be reconciled as such.

Just as occupation of space by one's body confers no permanent title to that space, neither does occupation of an area by one's dwelling. One can use that area as long as one dwells there, but once you leave, it's not yours any more. It's therefore still common property.

Idiotic "All Earth Is Common Property" notion rejected, of course. But you go quite beyond that, because you don't even acknowledge that while they are there, their exclusive occupancy of THAT SPACE, regardless how temporary, is a matter of right, as it is a requirement of life itself. For you ALL SPACE is "common property" AT ALL TIMES - even while they are there, even as they sleep, and long before they "leave".

Thus, contrary to your bullshit assertion, which you do not believe, that "we all have rights to occupy land temporarily with our dwellings" (add "exclusively", because that's what it also requires, and which I agree is an actual right), in your mind they are not there as a matter of right EVEN WHILE THEY ARE TEMPORARILY THERE. It's ALL privileged behavior in your mind - for all land, at all times. There are no rights to it, because even if you displace someone (like Granny) from her current living space, and she uses her UIE to obtain other land, she is STILL there, even on that other land as a matter of privilege, and not right, because it, too, is "common property", to which EVERYONE ELSE is said to have a right of access that needs to be reconciled.

[EcoWarrier]

Government shouldn't spend money.
Therefore government has no need to tax.
Therefore LVT is obsolete.

What part of La-La land do you live in? The part with pink elephants bouncing down the street?

[EcoWarrier]

I want a state, just for different reasons, serving very different purposes than your ideal, and decidedly collectivist vision.

The rambling thoughts of Mr Douglas's obsessed mind. LVT does not advocate collective ownership land. You have repeatedly been told this.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Whay part of La-La land do you live in? The part with pink elephants bouncing down the street?

Please use real arguments instead of ad hominem crap.

[Steven Douglas]

The rambling thoughts of Mr Douglas's obsessed mind. LVT does not advocate collective ownership land. You have repeatedly been told this.

Show me the entity to which land rents are permanently and perpetually due and owing, even if as a condition for its possession and usage, and I'll show you the permanent and perpetual landowner. And it doesn't matter if this isn't stamped clearly onto any of your LVT baby blocks. Others get exactly what it all means, and can understand it clearly enough.

LVT does not "advocate" anything, in and of itself (and if you meant "The LVT Movement" you should explicitly say so), because LVT is just a basis for a tax, separate from the wider agenda of those who advocate that it be implemented, and quite apart from your propaganda spinning that attempts to describe it as reclaiming "community socially created wealth for social purposes from the title holder..." That's only the rationale for LVT, as part of the broader agenda of its proponents who advocate the elimination of private property rights in land on the basis of the geoist "common property" doctrine. The classical definition of common property would include things like public parks, roads, common grazing pastures, etc., which are indeed collectively or commonly owned, with "undivided interest" by all. The geoists' normative is that ALL LAND IN EXISTENCE should be considered "common property". Otherwise, you lied when you showed us what was stamped onto one of your LVT baby blocks, when you wrote:

You only have land title. The state owns the land.

So either you are able to distinguish clearly between a title holder and an owner, or else you lied, and you're blowing smoke up everyone's ass by referring to title-holding "renters" as "owners".

And if you lied, does that mean that all the land of the Earth is not "common property" (collectively owned, with each and every individual having an equal right of access and usage to all land based thereon) after all? So you don't have an equal right of access to all land after all, regardless of any parcel's current usage or disposition, which needs to be reconciled? And does that also mean that you don't have a "common/community/collectivized" claim to land rents, via the state, on the basis of "common property" (collectivized) ownership?

No, not even you see yourself as "advocating" collective ownership of land. That's because you PRESUME it, de facto, as if collective ownership (i.e., all land, without exception = common property) was already the moral rule of law, having nothing to do with the state or anyone else. That is despite the fact that such a law would not exist in the real world without state recognition, adoption and enforcement.

Now bust out your blocks again, and show me how neatly they stacked, such that it all makes perfect, and simple, sense to you.