What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[helmuth_hubener]

100!

Oh, and you did make an exception for me - if I lived underground - provided nobody knows about it, of course, or moved in next door to me. Somehow association was key. It is only if I occupy space in plain view of others that I would owe anything. That's why it is a simple matter of coveting. Don't lie. And it is also a tax on free association. You cannot cluster together and circle your wagons for any length of time without some idiot calling it a "deprivation", and holding out his nasty, covetous tentacle demanding payment for something he did not improve, and for which he has no right - not even a half-baked "natural liberty right".

Yes, I think you see what I just started seeing. So you're not violating anyone's rights if no one knows about your cave, because then no one wants it. But is it the knowledge that creates the violation, or the wanting? What if a whole bunch of people know about it, but no one wants it? Still no rights violation -- they don't want it, its value is still zero to them Roy would say. What if the reason they don't want it is because they know you don't want to sell and they respect that?

Blank-out.

The rights-violation argument only works if your people are bent on seizing each other's land. If they really don't want to, their rights are not being violated because the value they're being deprived of is zero, or even negative. It's zero if they're indifferent to the idea of seizure, it's negative if they are actually opposed to seizure, for then they'd consider it to be a positive dis-value for them to seize others' land. Then it would be a violation of their rights and liberty to force them to seize or tax the land of others. It would deprive them of that value they would otherwise be free to enjoy -- self-respect and honor. And as we all know from Roy, depriving people of value which they would otherwise naturally be free to enjoy is really, really evil. The biggest evil of all, even above making Steven Douglas-like posts on the internet. Zap! Electric chair for you Roy for advocating such a thing.

[Steven Douglas]

The biggest evil of all, even above making Steven Douglas-like posts on the internet.

I don't think it gets more evil than making Steven Douglas-like posts on the internet. Stop lying!

Yeah, it all boils down individual desires, which are then collectivized as a value determinant. One problem though:

You have a community of 101 people, and you have exclusive use of a piece of land. 50 Covetous people step forward and say that they DEARLY want that land, and consider themselves completely and utterly deprived of their natural liberty right to occupy and use that piece that you occupy. The remaining 50 step forward and eschew any desire whatsoever for the land, saying that they would consider it Evil to want to dispossess someone of their exclusive "privilege" of usage and control. By your theory that should nullify everything, as positive and negative forces cancel one another out.

In Roy's world, the 50 who weren't interested in the land become non-existent. Their input does not count as negative, but rather nullified. That leaves the 50 remaining as comprising 100% of the "legitimate" say.

Isn't that great? And if 99 have no beef, Roy is still there as the lone dissenter - and 100% of the votes that count.

Then there is the question of "legitimacy" (Roy seems really big on democracy). We could always just put the matter to a popular vote. In that case, 50 votes are in favor of an LVT on you, and 51 are not, as you become the "legitimate" tie-breaker. But not in Roy's mind. The government is only legitimate when it follows what he views as non-evil, "self-evidently just", blah blah... He has his own criteria for legitimacy, thus bringing you full circle to the fundamental reality of Roy's mind. If all people on Earth voted 99.9999% against an LVT, and 99.9999% in favor of property ownership, he would still consider it evil. Of course, he'll argue that such an hypothetical vote is just silly, as it isn't even possible (and of course it isn't), but that's irrelevant to the point that he wouldn't accept it as a matter of principle even if it was.

[Steven Douglas]

I have to repeat this - if Roy had excluded individuals - homesteads specifically - I'd be right on board. It is actually the only reason why I became interested in this thread, as I could argue all of his fondest points way better than him, I think. I do not believe in property "rights", or rights of ownership of land for any but homesteaders. Individuals, as a matter of right. Not for governments, corporations, foreigners, fictitious collectives of any kind, and not as a commodity to be speculated on or traded in bulk or mass quantities. They really can all be driven out on a rail, as far as I am concerned, abolished (in the form of government) or taxed completely out of existence if they don't serve the public interest. But not sovereign individuals one to another - that truly is evil.

The only problems for me are where to VERY CAUTIOUSLY draw the line with individuals. If I see a Warren Buffet buying up an entire state, that bastard's got some 'splainin to do. If I see a farmer taking on a thousand acres, my only question is whether it's being farmed, or just farmed out. But if he's biting off what he can really chew, I don't have a problem with that. House flippers, land speculators, commercial developers, etc., can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned. Then it really is a question of whether it serves a public interest or not. They are acting as a matter of privilege in such cases, and I don't have a problem with slapping them into their places - especially if it affects the ability of the middle, working, and poorer classes to own land of their own.

[helmuth_hubener]

Steven,

Do you truly want to give property rights to homesteaders? Absolute, full, non-mealy-mouthed or wishy-washy rights? Because if you do:

The property right includes the right to sell.
He may sell it to whomever he wishes.
In selling it, he sells the entire property right, and the new owner has the same property right as the original homesteader had.
One man or company of men may buy up tract after tract after tract from original homesteaders, freely selling them their land.
Thus a non-homesteader ends up with miles upon miles of land. His right to this land is as absolute as any homesteader's. He may even decide to hold some of it out of production due to anticipation of some new trend or development on the horizon. The "idleness" of the land does not automatically and immediately forfeit his right to the land, though eventually after several years (or whatever the custom is) the vacant lot becomes the abandoned lot and is available for homestead again.

I won't complicate and confuse the issue by going into governments, corporations, nor foreigners, but just stick to non-homesteading individuals. If the original homesteaders had a property right in the land, that property right was transferable, else it was not a full and absolute property right at all.

Over time, the tendency will be for land to accumulate to a degree in the hands of those best suited to own it. Just as Steve Jobs was good at making decisions about smart phones, and thus got a large portion of the smart phone market, so a Steve Jobs-equivalent in landownership will be able to get a disproportionate share of the land market.

I said we should bring in Cantillon, so here he is:

Even if the prince distribute the land equally among all the
inhabitants it will ultimately be divided among a small number.
One man will have several children and cannot leave to each of
them a portion of land equal to his own; another will die without
children, and will leave his portion to some one who has land
already rather than to one who has none; a third will be lazy,
prodigal, or sickly, and be obliged to sell his portion to
another who is frugal and industrious, who will continually add
to his estate by new purchases and will employ upon it the labour
of those who having no land of their own are compelled to offer
him their labour in order to live.

At the first settlement of Rome each citizen had two
journaux of land allotted to him. Yet there was soon after as
great an inequality in the estates as that which we see today in
all the countries of Europe. The land was divided among a few
owners.

I see nothing wrong with this and everything right. Now in the USA people do like to own their own tiny plot of land. I think that is a healthy and charming habit, worth maintaining, and one that quite likely will continue. But there will certainly be land moguls, too, in a free market. That will be splendid. Roy will hate it.

[helmuth_hubener]

And so the time comes at last to part, as I have said everything I wanted to say. I have tried to focus on the important issues and ignore irrelevancies (such as Roy attempting to prove something pro-LVT with Atlas Shrugged, which clearly either he has not read or he has forgotten that in Galt's Gulch the land was owned privately and absolutely and was bought by the money of Midas Mulligan, who got it from giving loans to successful businessmen. Or Matt Butler conflating the shale in the Rockies with the sweet crude in North Dakota and so getting the quantity incredibly wrong.). I have not always been too strict about that, we have had some fun along the way, but at least I think I have, finally, addressed every interesting or potentially persuasive (if it had been anyone but Roy saying it) point that Mr. Roy gave me or that I could invent. I left the Bible stuff to AquaBuddha, who did very creditably. There's all kinds of references in the Bible supporting the idea that land is meant to be private property. The Bible as a whole is a very pro-property book. Of course, the Bible is true, so it being pro-property should be no surprise.

Anyway, I've tried to address this idea of LVT/landowning-as-theft from every different angle and approach possible. I saved one pro-LVT argument for last, since it appeared to be, in Mr. L.'s own opinion, his strongest, most devastating, most unanswerable argument. Since we have reached 100 pages at last, it is time to address the Pan-Ultimate LVT Argument. Here it is:

The Question:

"How, exactly, is production aided by the landowner's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?"

In the end, however, it turns out that this is not going to be very difficult to address after all. It's a bit of a let-down, an anti-climax. Production is aided by the land owner (or harmed by him) because of the good decisions (or bad ones) that he makes regarding the disposition and management of the land. Allowing the market to reward his good decisions and punish his bad ones ensures that there will be a tendency for production to be aided by the landowner instead of harmed. Every other sector of the market functions the same way. Competition and consumer preference means that behavior not aiding production to satisfy humans' wants will be punished, while behavior which does will be rewarded.

Mr. L. will say "But the landowner doesn't do any labor, thus he's a parasite". Well that's just the Calvinist Smith talking. Everything was all about labor to Smith -- the pain of labor was good and righteous and that is what gave economic products value. But bzzt, wrong, in fact the subjective preferences and values of humans is what gives goods value. The labor theory of value is so shot full of holes and absurdities it's impossible for me to shoot any new ones in it. So anyway, it's wrong. Labor is irrelevant to value. If I can satisfy millions of consumers by doing no labor whatsoever, then of course I should get paid tremendously for it. I deserve it! The end goal is millions of satisfied humans, not some kind of ascetic labor for the sake of labor. And the landowner, if he makes decisions regarding his land which satisfy his fellow humans, then obviously he's contributed to the satisfaction of his fellow humans. He's created value, or "aided production" as Mr. L. phrases it.

But the landowner can get rich even just by leaving the land idle and that's inefficient and horrible, says Mr. L. Well, who says leaving it idle is inefficient? In many cases, that is the most efficient thing to do. Putting improvements on the land might actually lower the value of the land for someone coming along later. Let's say you build a gas station on some land. OK, now a couple years later it turns out that would've been a great place for an apartment complex. The apartments are a much better, more efficient use of he land, according to market preferences. Now the gas station will need to be torn down -- it's a dis-improvement, an annoyance, and a large cost. A speculator wise enough to hold it out of use and off the market for a couple more years could have saved everyone a lot of money. That is, he could have created value.

Land owners perform a very important entrepreneurial function: they allocate and make ultimate decisions regarding scarce land. This is not a parasitic function. This is a critically important function. They may delegate many or all of the decision-making to managers. Fine. So too may the shop owner or restaurant owner delegate many or all of his decisions to managers. But the owner in all cases still plays a vital role. He must find and hire the best managers. He must make sure the managers are doing a good job, making him lots of money. And he is always and unavoidably the ultimate manager, the manager of managers, the one with the money on the line and who determines the direction and future of the restaurant or shop or land. He must correctly anticipate consumer desires. In landowning, that means anticipating city growth trends, adopting new and innovative ways of utilizing land if they will allow better satisfaction of consumer desires, rejecting them if they will not, making connections and putting together projects (roads, electrical, water, making it all fit together, on a free market landowners would do all this, not the state; there's no reason to put the state in charge of roads, electrical, water, or any of those kinds of things, it will be the job of clever landowners working together to make everything fit together into urban [or rural, or suburban] spaces people will love), keeping land undeveloped when it will be most efficient to do so, developing it when that will be more efficient, and deciding what will be the best and most profitable type of development for which to use the land. And much more! Landowners have a busy, busy job, a lot to do.

A big landowner may not be down in the trenches doing lots of manual labor improving his properties. Instead his labor is making decisions. Well, just so the big CEO's job is largely decision-making. Decision-making is important. It is productive. It is, in fact, indispensable and probably the most productive thing one can do!

That is why production is aided by the landowner getting paid. By the way, the other side of this is that he can sustain losses, too. Under Mr. L.'s Platonic ideal, he can't make any profit, but neither can he incur any loss. That's bad. Via the fantastic and quasi-miraculous mechanism of profit and loss, markets reward the value-producing, punish the value-destroying, and thus get more and more of the productive and less and less of the destructive. Without that incentive mechanism, there is no reason for any landowner (land-tenant under Mr. L.'s ideal) to take any risks, to go to any huge mental effort regarding his land, to do anything to try to increase the value of his land. That increase will go to the nation-state; he won't see a dime. Also the best landowners will not be able to progressively control more and more land while the worst lose more and more to their superiors outcompeting them. There is still an incentive mechanism in the ability to make profit or loss on the improvements, Mr. L. will belaboringly remind us, but there will not be any such mechanism on the land itself. The loss of that mechanism will cause the land allocation to become, eventually, crummy.

I wish there were more to say regarding this The Question. But it's really quite simple: land managers have control over an important part of the economy: land. That being so, they perform an important economic role. That role may be performed either well or poorly. The way to encourage superior performance is to allow these land managers to be subject to market forces and incentives, driving them towards ever-greater efficiency and productivity in satisfying customer wants. That is, to let them be landowners and not landtenants, and thus receive the full rewards of their wisdom or bear the full costs of their folly.

I shall not truly depart, I think, but will continue popping in to see if anything interesting is happening. I will perhaps make a table of contents linking to my most substantive posts of the thread for easy reference. But for now, I really have nothing more to say. I think that I have made a somewhat good case for landownership, and that I have unraveled and disposed of the case against it at least to an extent.

This was the best Georgism thread ever. I'd like to thank Roy L. for being my muse. And now in conclusion, Roy, I'd like to shock you by announcing that you are right! I have been lying all along. All the things you said were lies really were lies. All the things you said were just stupid or absurd really were idiotic and nonsensical. I didn't think it was possible, but you convinced me. Your style of argument is abrasive, it is hard-hitting, but as you say, realizing you're on the side of evil is hard, and so it calls for hard medicine. You never compromised the truth and so finally I was forced to truly and deeply reexamine my beliefs. Thank you for helping me to see my mistakes and how messed up my world-view was. Please, don't ever change your arguing method. It is the most effective one. Keep up the good fight for Land Justice!

[Steven Douglas]

Agreed with just about everything you wrote, with one exception: Non-homesteaders, like the land moguls you mentioned, operate as a matter of qualified licensed privilege, and not right. The homesteader, on the other hand, operates ALWAYS as a matter of right. He may buy and sell at will, to and from whomever he likes - meaning ZERO government interference whenever a homesteader is involved, and a decided advantage to all homesteaders as a matter of right. Even to the law erring always on the side of the homesteader. The non-homesteader, on the other hand, can actually be evaluated, regulated, taxed, etc., and treated as the corporations once were, once upon a time, when they actually had to demonstrate that they performed a public service by their existence, and weren't simply granted fictitious immortality and personhood with rights for the filing of some papers. It is not so much to control them as it is to give every natural advantage to the homesteader, the individual, and to ensure that NO artificial advantage is given over any individual. In other words, the only entity that need not fear the natural person is another natural person. Everyone else can quake for all I care.

In principle, I stand behind whatever makes the market MOST free to individuals in their human pursuits - all of the rest operate as incidental, secondary, and qualified where necessary. That, to me, is the essence of the now bastardized "Eminent Domain" doctrine (the spirit of which Roy would love, because it pushes people off of land) as it should have been applied to individuals - and not just to make room for a new highway; a developer or land mogul now can convince city planners that a shopping mall would be great for the city - and poof goes the rights of the individual, who is forced to accept whatever the "incorporated" city declares is the market value - prior to that value going through the roof after John Q. Gotscrewed is pushed aside. In that case, I see John Q. Gotscrewed as having a bona fide case against the city and/or developer for all of the lost value - because his land that he didn't want to sell was the object of speculation. That really is a loss to him (in the case of Eminent Domain only - a forced sale - not just a developer simply buying land and later profiting from it).

[helmuth_hubener]

But pretty soon in any given place the easiest and most obvious classes of resources, such as surface area of the Earth, have been homesteaded. So the only ones who actually get absolute (read: actual) property rights are the first generation. Anyone to whom they sell the land, or give it as inheritance, will have no right to the land, only privilege, is that right? Or am I misunderstanding your use of the word "homesteader"?

[Roy L]

I already explained all that in my post.

And I refuted it.

You, on the other hand, accept labels completely and without further examination (when they suit you), with no concern for the reality.

Lie.

All property owners are now leasors. The governments now own all the surface area. Property tax is repealed and lease rent is instituted. The leasors can only keep their tenure right if they pay their lease rent. All better now?

If the rate is a lot higher, and only on land value, yes.

Of course, not even Hong Kong!!11!1 has done that and Mr. L. has no complaints nor criticism for that Georgist paradise,

Lie.

You didn't have any refutation whatsoever for my assessment of Haiti as not having a very high regard for property rights. It very clearly doesn't. A title there is clearly much more tentative, much more iffy, than a title, whoops I'm sorry an exclusive lease, in Hong Kong!!1!1!11.

Nevertheless, landowners who got rich by owning land run the place.

As far as Dubai goes, you demolish that by pointing out (with no specific figures nor sources; that is, as always, with no data) that the elite own most of the land.

No, you are lying again. It is very specifically the GOVERNMENT -- absolute ruler Sheik Mohammed al-Maktoum and his family and businesses -- not any private landowning elite, that owns almost all the land (well over 90% of it by value). I invite all readers to check this fact for themselves. Until recently, no foreigner was even allowed to own land in Dubai at all, and even the locals almost all leased the land from al-Maktoum or his companies.

Which, I think, is likely true. It seems plausible based on my own knowledge, despite your giving no one any reason to believe you.

I have given the best possible reason to believe me: always being honest and factually correct.

This appears to be one of those cases where Roy Reality has an intersection point with Regular Reality. But is that (the elite owning most of the land) not exactly what you say is the evil of my system and the grace of yours? Is not the elite owning everything what I want, and what you want to end as a great evil?

You are deliberately trying to deceive your readers on the crucial fact about this particular landowning elite: it is not an elite of private landowners, it is THE GOVERNMENT.

The fact is, land is untaxed in Dubai.

The fact is, it doesn't have to be, because the government owns it.

No land rent is recovered.

That is a bald lie. Everyone who leases land from the al-Maktoum interests is paying land rent to the government.

Land is taxed in Hong Kong!!11!1. Land rent is recovered. You would look at that "indisputable fact" and predict that Dubai would be a poor and horrible place, especially compared to Hong Kong!!11!1.

Nope. Unlike you, Sheik al-Maktoum and I are willing to know the fact that the land rent he spends on services and infrastructure, as Dubai's government, comes back to him in ever-increasing land rents.

Dubai is your worst dystopia come alive. No land rent is recovered,

Lie, as already proved.

elites own most of the land,

The GOVERNMENT owns almost all of it.

My prediction fits the reality better. Dubai is doing well, and even better than Hong Kong!!11!1.

Because Dubai's government recovers more land rent than Hong Kong's.

So you just completely conceded the practical side of the point. You openly concede the empirical data does not seem to support your theory.

Lie. Private landowning works better than primitive land allocation systems like tribal tenure, but it is far inferior to full land rent recovery instead of taxation of production.

Rather it supports the theory that land-owning, to quote Roy L., "has been economically successful". Splendid quote!

It has been successful compared to primitive land allocation systems that ignore the market, but is still far inferior to full land rent recovery.

And so you fall back upon the moral side of the point ("slavery was successful too, but immoral, just like land-owning") which is now all you have left.

It is an important point, as millions are murdered every year by landowner privilege, a heavier toll than slavery ever exacted.

Normally, no one ever openly concedes anything in these discussions except for me.

Lie. I have PROVED YOU WRONG hundreds of times, and IIRC you have only conceded once.

[Steven Douglas]

But pretty soon in any given place the easiest and most obvious classes of resources, such as surface area of the Earth, have been homesteaded. So the only ones who actually get absolute (read: actual) property rights are the first generation. Anyone to whom they sell the land, or give it as inheritance, will have no right to the land, only privilege, is that right? Or am I misunderstanding your use of the word "homesteader"?

Yes, you are misunderstanding my intent - my fault, based on my misuse of the word homesteader.

By homestead I don't mean land originally developed, or granted as a matter of an act of legislation, which in turn has some special legal status associated with it. That would not work, for the reasons you already stated. I mean any "primary declared land" that is owned by any free and natural individual.

In common law it would be something like "fee simple" freehold ownership (although give me the magic wand and it would be more like outright allodial title). Either way it would transfer with each individual as a matter of right. The defining legal characteristics of all land, then, would be based on the nature of the owner, not the land itself, and whether or not it was a primary residence, and therefore subject to homestead/fee simple/freehold/allodial/etc., protection.

So, for example, if I as an individual sold a piece of "fee simple" land to a corporation, it could no longer be fee simple, since that corporation would act as a matter of privilege only, and would be under a completely different jurisdiction and governing set of laws with respect to that same land (i.e., that land could be taxed based on their legal status). However, if I turned around and bought a piece of land from a corporation that was previously taxed based on prior corporate ownership, that piece of land would automatically become "fee simple", and governed under a different set of laws, based on my superior legal status as an individual. As such, it would not be subject to taxation, or other statutory or regulatory controls associated with corporations and others.

In my version, the "absolute" right of fee simple freehold ownership lives and dies as the inalienable right of the owner, who has a unqualified right to a single fee-simple homestead exemption, which follows him throughout his life. The land itself, as a store of wealth, may still be passed on by inheritance, just as now, but it would only be subject to 'homestead' protection if it was declared the "primary land" of the heir to that land. If the heir already had a piece of property that was exempted, s/he could sell or gift it to another individual who had made a claim.

One free and natural person = a single inalienable right (not entitlement) to own and declare one freehold as homestead exemption.

[Roy L]

Those who are using some surface area of the Earth to farm and try to have something to eat, or some branches in a tree to put their treehouse to try to stay warm and dry, those folks are actually mistreating and abusing others in an extremely rude and evil manner by virtue of their doing that. Who are they abusing? Those who would, if they offered it for sale, be willing to buy it.

No, those who, if their liberty were not being violated, would be at liberty to use it.

that I have just as much right as them to their land.

"Their" land? Blatant question begging.

I don't know anyone who would. It's just not rational. It's just not civilized. The other guy's tree house isn't hurting me. The other guy isn't being rude to me by having the tree house. I don't accept that he is "monopolizing" the tree in any correct nor historical sense of the word monopoly. I don't accept that I have a right to his tree.

More blatant question begging.

It's just sociopathic to think you are entitled to other men's stuff.

Is that what Friday is, when he is reluctant to get back in the water because Crusoe has "homesteaded" the island? A sociopath?

I'd say the one who advocates and applauds his murder by Crusoe is the sociopath.

So your whole idea that a violation of rights is occurring because people would probably buy it if it were for sale,

That's not my idea. You know this. You are just lying.

Most people don't feel that people owe it to them to transfer their stuff them-ward, "nature-given" or not (and as I've said, everything is ultimately nature-given).

Which, as I've said, is an absurd lie.

Those who do are sociopaths.

Those who rationalize and justify an annual Holocaust are sociopaths.

So in a way, actually the community being there hasn't given the land any value at all.

You know that the land would have no value in the community's absence. Of course you do. You are just lying about it. As usual.

It's totally valueless, except to its owner and those he permits to use it, and except to sociopaths, until and unless the owner is willing to sell it.

Lie. It's value would be just the same if he died. You know this.

Roy will trace your IP address and hunt you down like the foul, sick evil-doer that you are.

I am not the one who tracked down another poster's contributions to other forums and posted a link to them here.

Oh, and you never did say which post you lifted from Rothbard. It was #699 as I said, wasn't it? You even lied about that.

[Sola_Fide]

Lies!

[Steven Douglas]

No, those who, if their liberty were not being violated, would be at liberty to use it.

Roy walked through miles and miles of forest, day after day, alone in the woods and the wilds, subsisting mostly on pine nuts and wild berries. Roy was accustomed to being alone, but that did not mean that he was not lonely. Roy was truly a sad, lonely, lonely soul.

Late one afternoon, while rooting for grubs in a felled and rotting tree, Roy spied a column of smoke rising from a small clearing off in the distance. Roy followed this until it he was close enough to see that he had indeed stumbled onto a small settlement.

Ah! I knew it! Roy thought to himself. My natural liberty rights were being violated all along! Were it not for their violations of my natural liberty rights, I would be at liberty to use the very land they are on now. Well, they don't owe me much, because there is other available land around, but they do owe me, by Dog. Perpetually even.

And with that, Roy took a deep, fortifying breath, and set out toward the settlement, to sort out all the willing payers from the evil would be thieves who were oppressing him.

As Roy addressed the several families of settlers as they sat around the fire, a kindly old woman ladled a nice hot bowl of soup for Roy from the large cast iron cauldron that was suspended over the fire.

Roy thanked the old woman, and patiently explained the deprivation he was now suffering because of the natural liberty rights these settlers had deprived him of, given that he would have been at liberty to use this land if were it not for them. Everyone listened intently, politely - wide eyed even, and with rapt interest. Roy felt that he was making progress, and breathed an inner sigh. At last, he felt that he might be witnessing the seeds of a possible dawn of a non-oppressive utopia.

When Roy had finally finished saying his peace, there was silence in the camp. Finally, one of the settler children, a young boy of about 13 years of age with an inquisitive look on his face, approached Roy. In the boy's hand was a long piece of cloth, and in the bottom of that cloth a rock, which the boy brought full circle, with one deft move, into the center of Roy's forehead. This caused Roy to fall backward, unconscious, into the cauldron.

Poor Roy had stumbled onto a rare discovery - the unknown surviving descendants of the Donner Party, who lived by an entirely set of deprivation-based rules of their own. When the freshly provisioned camp broke for higher ground the next day, they decided to deed the land to Roy, including the hole they had dug for his bones, free of charge.

[heavenlyboy34]

Except when you work for a business you are agreeing to forfeit any ownership of what you create and get reimbursed through wages, benefits, etc. But we cannot trace back the creation of natural land to any single person or company. Therefore, land is different from capital and therefore must be treated differently.

Not all men are created equal? So I assume you disagree with the Declaration of Independence?

What I meant is that all men are different (and start their lives in different situations in terms of wealth, etc). Notice I also said that all men have equal rights. RBP claimed that "others around you to have equal access to land. When you have a few people grabbing up all the land then you have a problem." which is obviously false.

[Roy L]

In other words, I have said something which not only can you not refute, not only can you not interface with the statement in an intelligent way,

One cannot interface with it in an intelligent way because it is stupid, meaningless garbage. Which water is "that" water? "Owns" it how? Your statement was just a cretinous spew of meaningless, dishonest garbage.

not only all that, which has been true for almost all your posts throughout this discussion,

Lie.

in this case you do not even have a talking point to regurgitate for it.

There is nothing to talk about. Your statement was merely an attempt to deny a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality -- that people are naturally at liberty to use all that nature provided -- by spewing meaningless, dishonest garbage at it.

[Roy L]

Roy, might I make a suggestion? Regardless of my position on whether I agree with you or not....your condescending, sarcastic, and snarky remarks are major turn-offs to your larger point(s), regardless of how valid (or not) they are. Because of this, might I recommend not being so insulting?

Sorry, but I am not able to pretend that the fallacious, absurd and dishonest rationalizations for evil offered by those who serve evil merit any respect. Any objective reading of the "arguments" being made against LVT here will show that they are not only invariably fallacious but patently absurd and relentlessly dishonest. jascott is the only one who has not told stupid lies.

[moostraks]

...
Ah! I knew it! Roy thought to himself. My natural liberty rights were being violated all along! Were it not for their violations of my natural liberty rights, I would be at liberty to use the very land they are on now. Well, they don't owe me much, because there is other available land around, but they do owe me, by Dog. Perpetually even.

And with that, Roy took a deep, fortifying breath, and set out toward the settlement, to sort out all the willing payers from the evil would be thieves who were oppressing him...

Poor Roy had stumbled onto a rare discovery - the unknown surviving descendants of the Donner Party, who lived by an entirely set of deprivation-based rules of their own. When the freshly provisioned camp broke for higher ground the next day, they decided to deed the land to Roy, including the hole they had dug for his bones, free of charge.

[Edu]

Well, judging from history, technically, those who have the ability to defend the land from being taken from them own it.

This is correct. Put up a fence and let everyone around you know it's yours by marking it and then defend it.

Things have gotten so twisted.

There is no such thing as a direct tax in this country. << READ THAT AGAIN TILL YOU GET IT!!

If you think congress has the power to directly tax any SOVEREIGN American, you are lacking in your education.

If you do not understand that each American is a sovereign, you need to read something about it. Like the Declaration of Independence, sheesh.

You cut away from the King, you are now free, you are now sovereign yourself. << WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND?

If some government can DIRECTLY tax you, then you are BELOW THAT GOVERNMENT. You better check the label on your underwear!

And whoever thinks you need a national retail tax to run the government needs to look up how the government ran the first 100 years WITH A BUDGET SURPLUS!!

This is basic stuff that you should have leaned in high school.

[Roy L]

I don't get it Roy, why exactly are you here?

To fight evil.

You only post in this thread,

I have posted in others as well; but only a few interest me, and most haven't gone on very long. IMO the threads devoted to current electoral politics are pointless.

nothing of which has to do with getting Ron Paul elected,

I am certain that Ron Paul cannot be elected president. The system is just too corrupt, too much the private property of the corrupt propertied class. But Ron Paul and people who support Ron Paul are at least willing to talk about the real issues: the inherently corrupt monetary and banking systems; corporate subsidies, welfare and bailouts; the evil and insane "War on Drugs"; unjustifiable foreign military adventures; the unjust and economically destructive income tax system; etc.

you obviously don't even believe in one of the most important priciples of the liberty movement, namely the right property (yes that includes owning land)

No, it does not. Every great thinker on liberty has recognized the fact that property in land lacks justification. redbluepill provided a number of quotations to that effect.

and all you do is insult people who don't buy into your ridiculous notion that land owning is theft.

No, I demolish their fallacious, absurd and dishonest "arguments." You know this.

So I repeat, why are you here? This thread has gone on for 99 pages...aren't you bored of owning us and destroying our nonsensical, immoral apologies for evil, greedy land owning parasites?

I am wearied, beyond the rich resources of the English language to express, of the relentless dishonesty of apologists for privilege, injustice and evil.

[Roy L]

Roy walked through miles and miles of forest, day after day, alone in the woods and the wilds, subsisting mostly on pine nuts and wild berries. Roy was accustomed to being alone, but that did not mean that he was not lonely. Roy was truly a sad, lonely, lonely soul.

Late one afternoon, while rooting for grubs in a felled and rotting tree, Roy spied a column of smoke rising from a small clearing off in the distance. Roy followed this until it he was close enough to see that he had indeed stumbled onto a small settlement.

Ah! I knew it! Roy thought to himself. My natural liberty rights were being violated all along! Were it not for their violations of my natural liberty rights, I would be at liberty to use the very land they are on now. Well, they don't owe me much, because there is other available land around, but they do owe me, by Dog. Perpetually even.

And with that, Roy took a deep, fortifying breath, and set out toward the settlement, to sort out all the willing payers from the evil would be thieves who were oppressing him.

As Roy addressed the several families of settlers as they sat around the fire, a kindly old woman ladled a nice hot bowl of soup for Roy from the large cast iron cauldron that was suspended over the fire.

Roy thanked the old woman, and patiently explained the deprivation he was now suffering because of the natural liberty rights these settlers had deprived him of, given that he would have been at liberty to use this land if were it not for them. Everyone listened intently, politely - wide eyed even, and with rapt interest. Roy felt that he was making progress, and breathed an inner sigh. At last, he felt that he might be witnessing the seeds of a possible dawn of a non-oppressive utopia.

When Roy had finally finished saying his peace, there was silence in the camp. Finally, one of the settler children, a young boy of about 13 years of age with an inquisitive look on his face, approached Roy. In the boy's hand was a long piece of cloth, and in the bottom of that cloth a rock, which the boy brought full circle, with one deft move, into the center of Roy's forehead. This caused Roy to fall backward, unconscious, into the cauldron.

Poor Roy had stumbled onto a rare discovery - the unknown surviving descendants of the Donner Party, who lived by an entirely set of deprivation-based rules of their own. When the freshly provisioned camp broke for higher ground the next day, they decided to deed the land to Roy, including the hole they had dug for his bones, free of charge.

Were you under an erroneous impression that you were making a meaningful contribution to anything?

[heavenlyboy34]

This is correct. Put up a fence and let everyone around you know it's yours by marking it and then defend it.

Things have gotten so twisted.

There is no such thing as a direct tax in this country. << READ THAT AGAIN TILL YOU GET IT!!

If you think congress has the power to directly tax any SOVEREIGN American, you are lacking in your education.

If you do not understand that each American is a sovereign, you need to read something about it. Like the Declaration of Independence, sheesh.

You cut away from the King, you are now free, you are now sovereign yourself. << WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND?

If some government can DIRECTLY tax you, then you are BELOW THAT GOVERNMENT. You better check the label on your underwear!

And whoever thinks you need a national retail tax to run the government needs to look up how the government ran the first 100 years WITH A BUDGET SURPLUS!!

This is basic stuff that you should have leaned in high school.

If you really believe this, you haven't been paying attention. "Sovereign citizens" ceased to exist long ago.

[Sola_Fide]

Lies! All of you are liars! Lies!

[Steven Douglas]

Your statement was merely an attempt to deny a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality -- that people are naturally at liberty to use all that nature provided -- by spewing meaningless, dishonest garbage at it.

Let's examine that specifically, and break it down for clarification. Correct me please, or clarify as needed (specifically, please, not just dismissively, as "meaningless" or "dishonest" or "spewing garbage")

ROY: "A self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality -- that people are naturally at liberty to use all that nature provided.

I agree with that on its face. Naturally At Liberty, taken at face value only, simply implies that you are physically capable of walking up and making physical use of all that nature has provided.

Let's extend that:

I am also naturally at liberty to stab someone, attempt to rob a bank, give to a beggar, start a fight, have title to land that I have purchased, or even to propose an LVT tax regime on all land. I am also "naturally at liberty" to plant and harvest my own garden, or sneak into my neighbors yard to harvest his for myself. I am "naturally at liberty" to do all these things, Roy - not because I "may" (license, permission) do these things, and not because it is necessarily my right, but simple because I can. That is what "naturally at liberty" means, having nothing whatsoever to do with right or wrong, good or bad, legitimacy or illegitimacy. So you are correct. It is truly 'self-evident'. On the other hand, I am "artificially at liberty" to do only those things which are lawful.

When you use the phrase "naturally at liberty", however, you don't mean simply that one "can", or even that "they otherwise physically could". For you it has an extended meaning - one which you also believe is "self-evident" - as what you have termed a Natural Liberty Right. That is where "a natural physical capacity" is selectively conflated to imply a "natural liberty right". So let's break that down.

NATURAL - Adj. Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Correct?

LIBERTY - Noun.

1. The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
2. An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.

And we could go to Webster:

1. the quality or state of being free
2. the power to do as one pleases
3. freedom from physical restraint
4. freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
5. the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
6. the power of choice

So it is clear that liberty is power, freedom or enjoyment in some form. Now you have to choose which definition you mean, Roy (even if from another source - you can provide that). And that choice will determine whether the phrase "Natural Liberty Right", as you intend it, is a self-evident truth or a self-contradictory oxymoron.

Now, Natural Liberty Right begins with the word "natural", which implies that the following word, liberty, is also natural in origin. Because if you choose a definition that is artificial, then the term "Natural Liberty" is immediately rendered as a meaningless, self-contradictory oxymoron: a Natural Artificial. So I assume that your are talking about a "natural" capacity, power, or ability, and not an artificial privilege or grant?

RIGHT - Noun

1. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
2. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.
3. adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority.
4. that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.
5. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.

The word RIGHT is where you get into trouble, Roy. All rights are artificial. Likewise, all morality. There is no such thing as a "natural right". Even if you looked at the animal kingdom as being a realm where absolutely everything is done as a matter of a "natural liberty right", you would have to conclude that murder, rape, theft, slavery, cannibalism, are all "natural liberty rights". In which case land ownership, which you consider theft, is actually a "natural liberty right" - just as theft is. And even murder. The only way to make it otherwise is to actually MAKE it otherwise. So rights can be declared, acknowledged, rationalized, enforced, etc., and I have no problem with that - but there is nothing "natural" about them.

There is no property of nature that equates to a "right", and no property of nature that shows intrinsic morality. All human rights are manufactured. OR else they are not, in which case there is as much of a "natural liberty right" to land ownership as there is an LVT.

Natural (objective reality) Liberty (objective reality) Right (subjective, artificial)

This does not make the statement necessarily untrue. You could, by declaration or edict, MAKE a natural physical capacity into an artificial right.

What you cannot do is declare that: NATURAL + NATURAL + ARTIFICIAL = NATURAL

In other words, a NATURAL LIBERTY is not "self-evidently" a RIGHT. It must be made so, and by making it so, it is no longer natural, nor is it self-evident as such.

Care to clarify? At the very least, please define (specifically) what you mean by the following terms.

1. Natural
2. Liberty
3. Right

That alone would be extremely informative. And don't say that they are also "self-evident", because there are multiple definitions. I can choose definitions that will cause your rationale to fall on its face. You can in turn say that's not the definition you meant, and we can back and forth until your finally clarify what, exactly, you meant by each word - and not a self-made, and therefore meaningless, definition of three words taken on the whole.

[heavenlyboy34]

No, it does not. Every great thinker on liberty has recognized the fact that property in land lacks justification. redbluepill provided a number of quotations to that effect.

>>incorrect. (btw, I looked through the thread, and I don't see redbluepill's post that you refer to.) Aristotle, Rothbard, and numerous other great thinkers on liberty defended private ownership of land. Those that don't argue for private land ownership generally only make niche contributions to the philosophy of liberty. Why haven't you read William Bradford's account of the failure of commonly owned property in colonial America(Plymouth colony)? Where has the abolishment of private land ownership ever made for a stable and wealthy society?

No, I demolish their fallacious, absurd and dishonest "arguments." You know this.

>>No, you just state and restate fallacious arguments and outright lies.

I am wearied, beyond the rich resources of the English language to express, of the relentless dishonesty of apologists for privilege, injustice and evil.

>>You keep claiming that private land ownership is "evil", "unjust", etc., but cannot logically prove it.

[Roy L]

"otherwise at liberty" is your argument in a nutshell, and the genesis of your false dichotomy - your biggest lie - that everyone has a liberty right to occupy the same space as everyone else,

Not only is that not my argument, I don't even know what you imagine it could mean.

given they "would otherwise be at liberty to use"...meaning, "If they did not exist I would have access to their space, wherever it is."

No, if they did not initiate force to deprive me of my liberty, I would be at liberty to use the space nature provided.

You believe in a right based on a non-existent reality.

Nope. The reality is self-evident and indisputable. You just can't dispute it, so you have to claim my argument is something other than I have plainly stated it is.

My right to "otherwise be at liberty to occupy your space" can only end if you cease to exist, because the moment you move, that space becomes exclusively occupied as well.

That is just stupid, irrelevant, dishonest garbage. No one is talking about the space a person's body occupies, and you know it. You merely realize that you have been comprehensively and conclusively refuted, so you are trying to change the subject.

So everyone's "right to otherwise be at liberty" is immediately transferred to any new space you might occupy. No rest for the weary - wherever you go, that space has some measurable value to me, however negligible,

It has no market value, and you know it very well.

that you are taking from me - so pay up, space occupation thief.

I have already refuted that stupid, dishonest garbage. Everyone's body occupies space, so the (yes, literally negligible) obligations all cancel anyway.

When I forcibly remove you out of your spot for non-payment, you will owe me for occupying the new spot I put you in, because my claim to a natural liberty right extends to that space as well. Which makes you an automatic debtor or a thief wherever you go - by virtue of your very existence. I would follow you to the ends of the earth and tax you to death, but what I really want is for you to pay rent for a spot that I consider collectively owned.

You are aware of the fact that that is stupid, dishonest garbage with no relation to what I have plainly written.

And yes - you ARE the ultimate propertarian. Stop lying about that. It is a flagrant tautology regardless how you phrase it.

I haven't phrased your stupid, dishonest garbage at all. You have.

Gypsies, nomads, vagabonds and other wandering souls would be excepted, I assume, because they are always on the move. Wouldn't it be just peachy keen to you - wouldn't that delight your sensibilities if that's all we were on Earth?

Beneath refutation.

Oh, and you did make an exception for me - if I lived underground - provided nobody knows about it, of course, or moved in next door to me.

No, stop lying. You can use the land of your choice for free, with secure tenure, up to the universal individual exemption value. Only when you forcibly deprive others of more than your equal share of the good land do you have to pay anything at all to compensate others for what you take from them.

Somehow association was key.

Only in what you are no doubt pleased to call your, "mind."

It is only if I occupy space in plain view of others that I would owe anything.

That is a bald fabrication on your part. You cannot refute anything I have said, so you make up some sort of stupid, dishonest garbage and attribute it to me. That's just lying.

That's why it is a simple matter of coveting. Don't lie.

I haven't, and won't. You, by contrast, are lying your silly head off about what I have plainly written.

And it is also a tax on free association

<yawn> Lie.

You cannot cluster together and circle your wagons for any length of time without some idiot calling it a "deprivation", and holding out his nasty, covetous tentacle demanding payment for something he did not improve,

Lie. No market value --> no deprivation. No value above the exempt amount --> no payment.

You just lie and lie and lie. You have no choice. I already told you that.

and for which he has no right - not even a half-baked "natural liberty right".

What stops him from just using the land, except your initiation of force?

This is the ABSOLUTE INSANITY of the world we live in now - multiple claims on the same physical wealth - which you have extended to space itself. That's your lie, your insanity, Roy.

No, Stephen, it is only your lie about what I have plainly written, and you know it.

My right to live and to exist requires space that is exclusive to me.

And landowning eliminates that right. Right.

It does not become a privilege-by-proxy because someone figured out how to swallow a BIG FAT LIE in the form of a goofy-stupid false dichotomy which says, in effect, "You have a right to live, but not an exclusive right to your own personal, non-moving space."

That someone would be you, not me. The universal individual land tax exemption I advocate restores the individual rights to life and liberty that private landowning removed: you get secure tenure on enough land to live on, without paying government OR a parasitic private landowner.

Since occupation of space can never be anything but exclusive, your very existence becomes a matter of "privilege of exclusive space occupation" (there is no other kind) which can then be taxed.

Or rather, it might, if that were not stupid, dishonest garbage unrelated to anything I have said. You have no arguments to offer against anything I have said, so you just make $#!+ up and attribute it to me instead of actually quoting me. To be fair, that is slightly less dishonest than Helmuth, who makes stupid $#!+ up and actually claims to be quoting me.

And since the power to tax involves the power to destroy - your very life, which depends upon exclusive space occupation, is subject to being taxed out of existence.

That is an outrageous fabrication. I have stated that LVT restores the equal individual rights to life and liberty by extending a uniform, universal individual exemption for enough good land to live on. It is the landowner's privilege of depriving others of their liberty to use the land without making just compensation that really "taxes" millions of innocent human lives out of existence EVERY YEAR.

[heavenlyboy34]

That is an outrageous fabrication. I have stated that LVT restores the equal individual rights to life and liberty by extending a uniform, universal individual exemption for enough good land to live on. It is the landowner's privilege of depriving others of their liberty to use the land without making just compensation that really "taxes" millions of innocent human lives out of existence EVERY YEAR.

What is "enough good land to live on"? 10 square meters? 10 acres? How do you plan to achieve this considering the drastically different types of land that exist? (we have everything from arid desert to frozen wilderness in North America alone) Everything you idealize is arbitrary and impractical in the real world.

[Steven Douglas]

You can use the land of your choice for free, with secure tenure, up to the universal individual exemption value. Only when you forcibly deprive others of more than your equal share of the good land do you have to pay anything at all to compensate others for what you take from them.

(emphasis changed)

WTF?

Stop the train then, because suddenly I'm all ears.

A "universal individual exemption" - with secure tenure? What does that mean, "secure tenure" based on a "universal individual exemption". How would that differ, in effect, from a "fee-simple" or similar title to land that was based only on such an exemption?

What do you mean by "universal individual exemption", "secure tenure", and specifically how would that play out in terms of taxes, regulatory controls, transfers (e.g., I want to move from Baltimore to Chicago) - and what circumstance could theoretically cause government to forcibly evict, or otherwise move someone with a "universal individual exemption"?

[Roy L]

>>incorrect. (btw, I looked through the thread, and I don't see redbluepill's post that you refer to.)

See posts #43 and #57 by redbluepill, and #23 by erowe1.

Aristotle, Rothbard, and numerous other great thinkers on liberty defended private ownership of land.

Aristotle was a great thinker, but not on liberty. He defended slavery. Rothbard, like a number of other thinkers on liberty, defended private property in land, but recognized that unlike property in products of labor, it needed more ingenious and less intuitive defending.

Those that don't argue for private land ownership generally only make niche contributions to the philosophy of liberty.

Flat false. David Friedman, for example, has explicitly conceded that there is no satisfactory justification for appropriation of land as private property. Robert Nozick and Albert Jay Nock have also admitted that property in land is at best a convenient fiction, not a right.

Why haven't you read William Bradford's account of the failure of commonly owned property in colonial America(Plymouth colony)?

Because like socialists and capitalists, he could not tell the difference between land and products of labor.

Where has the abolishment of private land ownership ever made for a stable and wealthy society?

Hong Kong.

[Roy L]

What is "enough good land to live on"?

I think the mode land value used per person is a reasonable estimate.

10 square meters? 10 acres? How do you plan to achieve this considering the drastically different types of land that exist? (we have everything from arid desert to frozen wilderness in North America alone)

By exempting VALUE not AREA.

Everything you idealize is arbitrary and impractical in the real world.

It has always worked, to the extent that it has been tried. ALWAYS.

[Steven Douglas]

What is "enough good land to live on"? 10 square meters? 10 acres? How do you plan to achieve this considering the drastically different types of land that exist? (we have everything from arid desert to frozen wilderness in North America alone) Everything you idealize is arbitrary and impractical in the real world.

^^ This also.

Is someone other than the individual with the exemption in charge of deciding what "good enough land to live on" means? Because once upon a time in America, the Projects were considered "good enough land to live on". So if this is based on bureaucratic trust OF ANY KIND, by any bureaucratically changeable formula, the entire idea has all the hallmarks of a nasty, rotten, individual-abusive stinker to begin with.

[Steven Douglas]

Also, Roy, I don't know why you keep holding up Hong Kong as an example. I've spent a LOT of time in Hong Kong. I renew my Chinese visa there and conduct business there all the time. It just happens to be THE most expensive place to live in the world, whether "buying" (the LVT version) or renting by natural extension (given that even an LVT "purchase" can be sublet, or rented out).