# News & Current Events > Economy & Markets >  Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected

## Origanalist

CNSNews.com)  The federal government is not making much headway reducing poverty despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars, according to a study by the libertarian Cato Institute.

Despite an unprecedented increase in federal anti-poverty spending, the national poverty rate has not declined, the study finds.

[S]ince President Obama took office [in January 2009], federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year, the study says.

Federal welfare spending in fiscal year 2011 totaled $668 billion, spread out over 126 programs, while the poverty rate that remains high at 15.1 percent, roughly where it was in 1965, when President Johnson declared a federal War on Poverty.


Read more at 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/stud...els-unaffected

----------


## Pauls' Revere

I bet there is a correlation with the destruction of the middle class.

----------


## donnay

> CNSNews.com) – The federal government is not making much headway reducing poverty despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars, according to a study by the libertarian Cato Institute.
> 
> Despite an unprecedented increase in federal anti-poverty spending, the national poverty rate has not declined, the study finds.
> 
> “[S]ince President Obama took office [in January 2009], federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year,” the study says.
> 
> Federal welfare spending in fiscal year 2011 totaled $668 billion, spread out over 126 programs, while the poverty rate that remains high at 15.1 percent, roughly where it was in 1965, when President Johnson declared a federal War on Poverty.
> 
> 
> ...



They have no intentions of reducing poverty.  The agenda is to make all of us poor and be beholden to them.  This country will be knocked down to third-world status, that is the agenda, make no mistakes about it.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Welfare does nothing to reduce poverty.

----------


## donnay

> Welfare does nothing to reduce poverty.


Just like warfare does nothing to instill peace.

We live in very Orwellian times.

----------


## Origanalist

> Welfare does nothing to reduce poverty.


You're poor? Here, let me give you a check, some food stamps and free medical care. Don't get a job or try to better yourself and there's more where that came from.

----------


## Roy L

> Welfare does nothing to reduce poverty.


True: it's purpose is to shovel money into the pockets of the poor's landlords.  It is a scam that goes all the way back at least to Roman times.  Rome gave out bread to the poor, and then couldn't figure out why they were no better off.  They doubled the bread allowance, and then tripled it.  Still the poor were poor and starving.  How was this possible?  Simple: once the bread started being given away, the rents in the areas near the bread distribution depots rose.  Rents tracked the amount of time and energy it took to get from a given point in the city to the nearest bread depot.  Everything Roman taxpayers thought they were giving to the poor they were only giving to landowners.  It's the same with every service or benefit government provides, and always will be.

----------


## donnay

"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life."

----------


## Exavier

This is no surprise I must admit. Sadly as inflation gets worse and the middle class is destroyed we'll only see things get worse for all of us.

----------


## Roy L

> "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life."


Own the lake, and _you_ eat for the rest of your life...

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> They have no intentions of reducing poverty.  The agenda is to make all of us poor and be beholden to them.  This country will be knocked down to third-world status, that is the agenda, make no mistakes about it.


100% truth

----------


## papitosabe

so what's the solution?  I know in in countries that are poor, kids are more educated.. Its not always parenting... What is it?  Is it that so many of us and are kids are dumbed down with all the crap they put in our foods?

----------


## lx43

> so what's the solution?


Eliminate the welfare programs.  Once people realize they have to live on the street and starve or work for food to eat and a place to live; they'll work.

----------


## PierzStyx

> "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life."


Build a man a fire, keep him warm for one night. Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.

----------


## Dr.3D

> "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life."


I was going to say the same thing.  If that money were spent teaching people how to get a job, or perhaps some trade, it would be better spent.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Own the lake, and _you_ eat for the rest of your life...


Only if you know how to fish or can get someone else to do it for you.

----------


## Acala

> so what's the solution?  I know in in countries that are poor, kids are more educated.. Its not always parenting... What is it?  Is it that so many of us and are kids are dumbed down with all the crap they put in our foods?


The solution is to get government out of the way and stop worrying about income distribution.  The prosperity engine of liberty will solve the problem.  Before government got into the poverty business, the American "poor" were living better than 99% of the population of the world EVER lived as a result of an overall increase in wealth.  Sure, some people end up wealthier than others.  So what?  As long as everyone's condition improves over time, what's the beef other than envy?  Let economic freedom produce wealth and everyone will get some.      

And the few who just totally fall through the cracks - the severly disabled for example - depend on charity.

----------


## Acala

> "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life."


Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.  Teach a man to fish and he will need to get a fishing license, abide by catch limits, license his watercraft and wear a floatation device, prepare his fish in accordance with Department of Health guidelines, dispose of the guts in accordance with EPA mandates, etc.  Easier to just take the fish.

(props to Doug Stanhope)

----------


## Roy L

> Only if you know how to fish or can get someone else to do it for you.


You don't have to "get" someone else to do it for you.  They want to eat, so they will *compete* to do it for you.  They have to use your lake.  They give you more than the next highest bidder, or they die.  Simple.

----------


## Roy L

> The solution is to get government out of the way and stop worrying about income distribution.  The prosperity engine of liberty will solve the problem.


But we don't have liberty.  We have a system where the rights of the productive are removed for the profit of the privileged.



> Before government got into the poverty business, the American "poor" were living better than 99% of the population of the world EVER lived as a result of an overall increase in wealth.


Nonsense.



> Sure, some people end up wealthier than others.  So what?  As long as everyone's condition improves over time, what's the beef other than envy?


Justice.



> Let economic freedom produce wealth and everyone will get some.


But we don't _have_ economic freedom.  We couldn't possibly have rich, greedy parasites getting something for nothing if we had economic freedom.  The producers who are consequently getting nothing for something wouldn't have to put up with it.



> And the few who just totally fall through the cracks - the severly disabled for example - depend on charity.


Charity is a poor substitute for justice.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Sure, some people end up wealthier than others.  So what?  As long as everyone's condition improves over time, what's the beef other than envy?


Have you ever heard of economic justice?




> Let economic freedom produce wealth and everyone will get some.


How?  The mechanism we use now does not work. Two world-wide economic crashes within 80 years!!  It needs fixing. Apart from Geoists, I have read nothing from anyone that remotely addresses the problem and more importantly on how to fix it.  Geonomics has a permanent long term answer.




> And the few who just totally fall through the cracks - the severly disabled for example - depend on charity.


Should the state provide the begging bowls free?

----------


## Origanalist

> Charity is a poor substitute for justice.


What is your definition of justice?

----------


## Origanalist

> Should the state provide the begging bowls free?


There is no such thing as the state providing something free.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> There is no such thing as the state providing something free.


Understand the points prior to that.

----------


## Roy L

> What is your definition of justice?


Rewards commensurate with contributions and penalties commensurate with deprivations will do for a start.

----------


## malkusm

If you could reduce poverty by giving people welfare, why would anyone need to work?

They've tried reducing poverty by giving people welfare, and instead they've reduced welfare by giving people poverty.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> They have no intentions of reducing poverty.  The agenda is to make all of us poor and be beholden to them.  This country will be knocked down to third-world status, that is the agenda, make no mistakes about it.


Yep. That and to silence and placate the ignorant masses while their nations are torn down around them. And once the nations are eliminated, so will the welfare. You _will_ work for your food after that. Borders will return with a vengeance, with sectors instead of nations. You want to leave your sector? You will need a permit. You want to relocate to a new sector? You will need sponsorship from a UN registered corporation in the new sector. 

[Disclaimer: the preceding is purely a work of fiction, with no resemblance to any situations in the past, present or future. Any resemblance to reality is purely coincidental. It is in no way a prediction, a theory or a conspiracy.]

----------


## EcoWarrier

> If you could reduce poverty by giving people welfare, why would anyone need to work?
> 
> They've tried reducing poverty by giving people welfare, and instead they've reduced welfare by giving people poverty.


The solution is not removing the welfare safety net, it is having the need not to have people use welfare in the first place.  *Get to the root, stop phaffing about on the surface with the symptoms.*

----------


## EcoWarrier

> They have no intentions of reducing poverty.  The agenda is to make all of us poor and be beholden to them.  This country will be knocked down to third-world status, that is the agenda, make no mistakes about it.


Reagan and Thatcher spouted about the free-market, not knowing what it was and they rigged it - They rigged LABOR, one of the factors of production. They took notice of the fools at the Chicago School of Economics, with Milton Friedman, who said a country like the UK, popn 60 million, needs an unemployed float of 1 million to rig LABOR, making the unemployed a part of their solution. Some free-marketeers eh!  Chile and Pinochet in the 1970s took notice of them and created unemployment. 

To many, unemployment is a part of the rigged solution. Paying Welfare is a part of that, costed in.  We need an unrigged free-market underpinned by a system that ensures that with minimal interference. Geonomics gives that.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Yep. That and to silence and placate the ignorant masses while their nations are torn down around them. And once the nations are eliminated, so will the welfare. You _will_ work for your food after that. Borders will return with a vengeance, with sectors instead of nations. You want to leave your sector? You will need a permit. You want to relocate to a new sector?


There is some truth in that. In the UK much land was "common".  People lived on the land without owning it and made their living from the land. Most were self employed.  Then came the Enclosures. Land was "stolen" and enclosed. People were turned off the land and have to be employed by another to survive - effectively slaves.  They only way out was to leave, so masses of British emigrated to the North America, Southern Africa and Australia, amongst others.  But they also enclosed land and did the same as their slave masters in the UK.


"Stop to consider how the so-called owners of the land 
got hold of it. They simply seized it by force, afterwards hiring lawyers 
to provide them with title-deeds. In the case of the enclosure of the 
common lands, which was going on from about 1600 to 1850, the 
land-grabbers did not even have the excuse of being foreign conquerors; 
they were quite frankly taking the heritage of their own countrymen, 
upon no sort of pretext except that they had the power to do so." 
_– George Orwell._ 

"Except for the few surviving commons, the high roads, the lands of the 
National Trust, a certain number of parks, and the sea shore below 
high-tide mark, every square inch of England is `owned' by a few 
thousand families. These people are just about as useful as so many 
*tapeworms*.  It is desirable that people should own their own dwelling 
houses, and it is probably desirable that a farmer should own as much 
land as he can actually farm." 
_– George Orwell_.

----------


## furface

It's better to hand out a few bucks to poor people than it is to give government bureaucrats $150k salaries with lifetime benefits.  I used to be anti-welfare, but have come to believe that big government salaries are a much worse problem.  

For some "occupations" it would be better to give money away than to hire government workers to do it.  For instance a standing military is a predatory institution.  It would be better to pay all the employees in a standing military to stay home and do nothing.

Same goes for a justice & correctional system that has gone wild arresting innocent people and throwing them in prison for the sake of government unions.  

Even the government education system is predatory if you ask me.  Its for profit goal is to indoctrinate & exclude, not to educate & increase employment.

Poor people getting money to live on is pale in comparison to government bureaucrats sapping the life out of our society.

----------


## EcoWarrier

Or those who cream off unearned income by appropriating common wealth as private profit.  This creaming off pails Welfare payment into insignificance in comparison.

----------


## Liberty74

Since LBJ, $16 trillion has been spent and the poverty level was 14% and now 14.3%. 

FAILURE!!!

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Since LBJ, $16 trillion has been spent and the poverty level was 14% and now 14.3%. 
> 
> FAILURE!!!


Welfare is not a failure, the economic system is a failure. Why are these people forced into the poverty trap. Look at the *root* not *symptoms*.

----------


## furface

> Or those who cream off unearned income by appropriating common wealth as private profit. This creaming off pails Welfare payment into insignificance in comparison.


I don't have such a problem with private profit even when it's exorbitant.  The difference is that the private sector doesn't put a gun to your head to force you to buy their product like the government does.  However, some "private" companies like banks are merely extensions of government power.

----------


## musicmax

> "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life."


"Feed a politician to the fishes and all men will eat better."

----------


## seraphson

> Welfare is not a failure, the economic system is a failure. Why are these people forced into the poverty trap. Look at the *root* not *symptoms*.


Subsidizing peoples expectations to fail and be rewarded is bad policy. Borrowing money we don't have from other nations to pay for these largely unfunded programs is bad policy. Borrowing from a privileged private bank which certainly has their own self interests is bad policy as well, as you've noted.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Subsidizing peoples expectations to fail and be rewarded is bad policy.


You missed it. Economics must be progressive in encouraging enterprise. That means :

discouraging speculation on land and its resources.not stealing from them in Income & Sales Tax.preventing people from appropriating Commonwealth for private gain.keeping private wealth private.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I don't have such a problem with private profit even when it's exorbitant.


You missed it.   *appropriating common wealth as private profit*

Also.....socializing private wealth.

----------


## Roy L

> I don't have such a problem with private profit even when it's exorbitant.


Then you either don't understand it, or you are one of the ones taking it.



> The difference is that the private sector doesn't put a gun to your head to force you to buy their product like the government does.


The private sector has government put a gun to your head to remove your liberty.  When your liberty has been removed you don't have options, and private interests can then take everything they want from you.



> However, some "private" companies like banks are merely extensions of government power.


That's one good example.  Ownership of land and other natural resources is an even bigger case of private profit from government power.  Then there are IP monopolies, rounding out the big three ways rich, greedy takers take an order of magnitude more from the economy than is spent on the poor.  And that's aside from the fact that everything government spends on welfare and other services for the poor is just taken by their landlords anyway.  That's why spending on the poor, whether by government or private charities, never actually helps the poor.  I've explained this before.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> ...rich, greedy takers take an order of magnitude more from the economy than is spent on the poor.


Wow, talk about laden, oozing and dripping, with begged questions and leftist assumptions.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Originally Posted by Roy L  
> ...rich, greedy takers take an order of magnitude more from the economy than is spent on the poor.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Wow, talk about laden, oozing and dripping, with begged questions and leftist assumptions.


Your extreme right-wing conditioning is surfacing again. You think it OK for people to steal from others.  There is nothing leftist at all about what Roy L wrote. Well if leftist means economic justice and fairness to the likes of you, well I am a leftist as well, as are 99% of people.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> And that's aside from the fact that everything government spends on welfare and other services for the poor is just taken by their landlords anyway.  That's why spending on the poor, whether by government or private charities, never actually helps the poor.


Welfare for landlords

----------


## Roy L

> Wow, talk about laden, oozing and dripping,


Grotesquely sickening, evil, and dishonest filth.



> with begged questions and leftist assumptions.


No, you are just lying again, Steven.  There are no leftist assumptions (other than the assumption that every human being has equal human rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor) or begged questions involved, and you know it.  It is an indisputable fact of objective physical reality that government initiates force to remove people's liberty for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, privileged parasites.  It does this by issuing and enforcing private ownership titles to natural resources, especially land sites; by issuing and enforcing intellectual property monpolies; by privileging private banksters to issue debt and enforcing its acceptance as money; by issuing corporate privileges of limited liability; and by many other privileges.  You know this.

----------


## asurfaholic

At least we can be sure we are spending our way out of the debt problem. Keep it coming.

----------


## AuH20

Making excuses for the willfully ignorant? That's what this thread has degraded to???? So based on what I'm reading, we must appease the poor for their hopeless ignorance and in essence subjugate ourselves to these elaborate welfare schemes concocted by these central planners??? Sorry but that dog doesn't hunt. Social welfare is the same creature as corporate welfare no matter what angle you look at it. Personal enlightenment emanating forth from the core of an individual is only way we're going to overcome this epidemic.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Originally Posted by Steven Douglas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Roy L
> ...


"....if leftist means economic justice and fairness to the likes of you..."?? No, to the likes of me, leftist is anything but that.  But it's very leftist of you to phrase it like that, as if everyone secretly thinks with your mindset.  Everyone has a different notion of what "economic justice and fairness" means, from Thomas Jefferson to Karl Marx.  Ask them all and they'll all tell you they're for "economic justice and fairness". Then ask them what that means to them.  And while your leftist bent is obvious, you are not representative of a decidedly divided and heterogeneous "99%".  That's a Red flag right there, reminiscent of another leftist brainfart mantra  -- OWS much? -- that presumptuously attempts to collectivize and speak on behalf of even those who are vehemently opposed to their ideology, as if most people were indeed secretly railing against the "evil 1%" they so blindly want vilified. 

Roy's (and now your) collectivist version of "the economy" is something that must somehow be "fairly and justly" apportioned. This is implied by a disparity conjured up that takes the form of a question-begging disproportion that must be addressed.  On one side of the economy there is the amount taken by "rich, greedy takers", which amount is out of all proportion ("justice and fairness" (_balance?_) from the amount "_spent on_ the poor".  Leftist, collectivist, socialist gibberish.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

If the government had to spend money, they should offer small business loans for those that want to start small businesses. Small businesses benefit everyone and can help the economy. 

I am sure a lot of people living in poverty wants to do something with their lives, but can't do it because they are locked into a perpetual world of working just to survive. They don't have spare money, especially in today's world of materialism, to start their own business and get themselves out of the hell hole. 

I think giving an individual a small business loan of $10,000 dollars is better than that individual being poor all the time and getting a check ever month. The individual would have to of course present a business plan and more. Conditions could be like the small business has to hire only US workers for at least 5 years and pay back the loan once the business reaches a certain threshold. 

I think it is worth it. For every 100 business start up, 1-2 succeeds. The ones that succeed can hire people. Of course there are risks, and especially with government involved. But if the government had to spend money, I wish they spend it this way.

----------


## Origanalist

> Grotesquely sickening, evil, and dishonest filth.
> 
> No, you are just lying again, Steven.  There are no leftist assumptions (other than the assumption that every human being has equal human rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor) or begged questions involved, and you know it.  It is an indisputable fact of objective physical reality that government initiates force to remove people's liberty for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, privileged parasites.  It does this by issuing and enforcing private ownership titles to natural resources, especially land sites; by issuing and enforcing intellectual property monpolies; by privileging private banksters to issue debt and enforcing its acceptance as money; by issuing corporate privileges of limited liability; and by many other privileges.  You know this.


Holy cow! So private ownership of property and intellectual property rights are now equated to the fed and limited liability to corporations?

I must have missed a turn somewhere, I have always thought that the right to own your own real property and intellectual property were the foundations for freedom and liberty. Not that we all become part of some huge collective and we all get our pre-apportioned little piece of that collective.

Where is this stuff coming from?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> "....if leftist means economic justice and fairness to the likes of you..."?? No, to the likes of me, leftist is anything but that.


Ah.  Some progress here.




> Everyone has a different notion of what "economic justice and fairness" means, from Thomas Jefferson to Karl Marx.


Economic justice?  

Firstly, Do not steal !!!!  It is even in the Bible, Koran , etc.

Stealing results in *economic injustice.*

Secondly:
understand what is commonwealthUnderstand what is private wealth.  

When commonwealth is appropriated and put into private wealth and conversely private wealth is put into commonwealth - *either is theft.*  That is *economic injustice.*


Currently private individuals and organiszation are stealing commonwealth - by various means.Currently the state are stealing private wealth - by imposing Income and Sales taxes.

Nos, 1 & 2 indicate *economic injustice*. 





> Roy's (and now your) collectivist version of "the economy" is something that must somehow be "fairly and justly" apportioned.


Total tripe. Roy, any Geoist on these forums and myself have never wrote any such thing.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> If the government had to spend money, they should offer small business loans for those that want to start small businesses. Small businesses benefit everyone and can help the economy.


What kills small businesses is taxation.  Take that away and enterprise flourishes. Land Valuation Taxation promotes small businesses, as taxation is removed from business and individuals.  Stifling sales taxes are removed.

Income taxes suppress productiveness.Sales taxes suppress trade.

Remove these bad taxes and enterprise flows.

Currently we have corporate fascism.  The tail wags the dog.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> What kills small businesses is taxation.  Take that away and enterprise flourishes. Land Valuation Taxation promotes small businesses, as taxation is removed from business and individuals.


FAIR WARNING to alucard and others:  You've heard the saying _All roads lead to Rome_. Likewise, all responses by "geo"libertarians Roy L. and EcoWarrier can lead to a full-on hijacking of a thread that leads it straight to yet another LVT (Land Value Tax) thread. All of their responses are based on the Georgist premise that landownership is the root of all evil and that a Land Value "single" Tax on all land is the panacea for all of humanity.  For those actually interested, there are already two War and Peace-length LVT threads that go into the subject ad nauseam.

----------


## oyarde

This is the fact: Throw away all the worthless money you wish , run up all the debt you wish , it will NEVER solve any problem , but will create more.

----------


## Roy L

> Holy cow! So private ownership of property and intellectual property rights are now equated to the fed and limited liability to corporations?


No.  Like Steven, you have to lie about what I have plainly written.  Once you have chosen to serve evil, you will and must lie.  You have no choice.

I stated explicitly that human rights include _property_ in the fruits of one's labor.  You know this.  You merely decided deliberately to lie about it.



> I must have missed a turn somewhere, I have always thought that the right to own your own real property and intellectual property were the foundations for freedom and liberty.


You were mistaken.  Our remote ancestors had freedom and liberty, and they never imagined property in land or information.



> Not that we all become part of some huge collective and we all get our pre-apportioned little piece of that collective.


Content = 0.  You are just using "collective" as a general-purpose pejorative.  Try addressing what I have actually said.



> Where is this stuff coming from?


Commitment to liberty, justice and truth.

----------


## Roy L

> If the government had to spend money, they should offer small business loans for those that want to start small businesses. Small businesses benefit everyone and can help the economy.


It would be far more effective to restore people's rights to liberty by stopping the treadmill, and the escalator it powers. 



> I am sure a lot of people living in poverty wants to do something with their lives, but can't do it because they are locked into a perpetual world of working just to survive. They don't have spare money, especially in today's world of materialism, to start their own business and get themselves out of the hell hole. 
> 
> I think giving an individual a small business loan of $10,000 dollars is better than that individual being poor all the time and getting a check ever month. The individual would have to of course present a business plan and more. Conditions could be like the small business has to hire only US workers for at least 5 years and pay back the loan once the business reaches a certain threshold. 
> 
> I think it is worth it. For every 100 business start up, 1-2 succeeds. The ones that succeed can hire people. Of course there are risks, and especially with government involved. But if the government had to spend money, I wish they spend it this way.


People don't need credit or debt to prosper.  They need justice, and their rights to liberty.

----------


## Bman

> ...when President Johnson declared a *federal War on Poverty*.
> 
> 
> Read more at 
> 
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/stud...els-unaffected


Maybe it can and should just be said.  A federal declaration of war on something means an endeavor to fight against something by spending billions of dollars, producing no results or making the situation entirely worse than it originally was.

You have to ask when will people learn.

----------


## Roy L

> FAIR WARNING to alucard and others:  You've heard the saying _All roads lead to Rome_. Likewise, all responses by "geo"libertarians Roy L. and EcoWarrier can lead to a full-on hijacking of a thread that leads it straight to yet another LVT (Land Value Tax) thread.


Landowner privilege is the elephant in the parlor that you are determined to pretend does not exist.  But the Henry George Theorem explains why you can't address other problems like the failure of welfare spending without addressing the land problem first.



> All of their responses are based on the Georgist premise that landownership is the root of all evil


Lie.  Greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money") is the root of all evil.  Landowning is merely the most important means by which greed is empowered by law.



> and that a Land Value "single" Tax on all land is the panacea for all of humanity.  For those actually interested, there are already two War and Peace-length LVT threads that go into the subject ad nauseam.


You are like the evil, anti-scientific filth who refused to know the fact that sanitation is the key to public health:

"Shut up about sanitation already!  We're talking about cholera here, not sanitation!"

"Yak, yak, yak!  No matter what the problem -- typhoid, dysentery, cholera, diarrhea, hepatitis, anything at all -- these sanitation cultists always yak about sanitation like it is a panacea for every disease!"

"FAIR WARNING to everyone who is concerned about disease: You've heard the saying _All roads lead to Rome_.  Likewise, all responses by these 'microbe' scientists can lead to a full-on hijacking of a thread that leads it straight to another sanitation ('clean water') thread."

----------


## Roy L

> "....if leftist means economic justice and fairness to the likes of you..."?? No, to the likes of me, leftist is anything but that.  But it's very leftist of you to phrase it like that, as if everyone secretly thinks with your mindset.  Everyone has a different notion of what "economic justice and fairness" means, from Thomas Jefferson to Karl Marx.  Ask them all and they'll all tell you they're for "economic justice and fairness". Then ask them what that means to them.  And while your leftist bent is obvious, you are not representative of a decidedly divided and heterogeneous "99%".


He does not claim to be representing them.  He is teaching them.  They are deceived, robbed and enslaved simply because they do not understand the treadmill of the productive, and the escalator of the privileged that it powers.



> That's a Red flag right there, reminiscent of another leftist brainfart mantra  -- OWS much? -- that presumptuously attempts to collectivize and speak on behalf of even those who are vehemently opposed to their ideology, as if most people were indeed secretly railing against the "evil 1%" they so blindly want vilified.


It is the foolish and deluded who are blind to privilege, and vilify its victims whenever they dare to protest.



> Roy's (and now your) collectivist version of "the economy" is something that must somehow be "fairly and justly" apportioned.


You're lying.  There is nothing "collectivist" about liberty, justice and truth, and you know it.  "Collectivist" is just your general-purpose pejorative, your substitute for actual thought.

And btw, _your_ version of the economy is also "something that must somehow be fairly and justly apportioned" -- according to your personal preference for stealing from the productive.



> This is implied by a disparity conjured up


Lie.  The disparity is self-evident and indisputable.



> that takes the form of a question-begging disproportion that must be addressed.


There is no question begging involved, stop lying.



> On one side of the economy there is the amount taken by "rich, greedy takers", which amount is out of all proportion ("justice and fairness" (_balance?_) from the amount "_spent on_ the poor".  Leftist, collectivist, socialist gibberish.


Evil, despicable, sickening fascist lie.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> All of their responses are based on the Georgist premise that landownership is the root of all evil and that a Land Value "single" Tax on all land is the panacea for all of humanity.


Total nonsense - as usual by you. Geoists know that appropriating commonwealth for private gain is evil *- it is stealing.* They know that appropriating private wealth for social use is evil as well *- also stealing.*  Ownership of land is insignificant to that. 

The Single Tax is a panacea to what we have - which fails regularly causing world-wide crashes and misery.

Small businesses need:

Less bureaucracy - need to spend time doing productive economic growth creating tasks not acting as defacto tax collectors.NO taxation of the businessNO taxation of employees or owners wagesNO taxation of trade - sales taxes.

*Income Tax stifles production**Sales Tax stifles trade*

We do the above two, exactly what we should *NOT* be doing - stifling production & trade which create economic growth.

How does the government get its revenue is Income and Sales taxes are not collected?  By taxing wealth created commonly - reclaiming commonwealth.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Maybe it can and should just be said.  A federal declaration of war on something means an endeavor to fight against something by spending billions of dollars, producing no results or making the situation entirely worse than it originally was.
> 
> You have to ask when will people learn.


Tony Blair said soemthing similar in 1997.  The wealth of the UK and its intellect meant poverty need not be there. He failed and still unable to fathom out why - in a country that is rich.  All western countries are the same.  The economic systems they use are seriously flawed.  And no one is offering to fix them.  Yesterday a British minister in finance, Vince Cable, who leans toward Geoism, was crying nothing is being done to fix the permantly leaking hole in the damaged hull.  Pumping out the bilges to keep the ship afloat only works until the pumps fail again.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> But the Henry George Theorem explains why you can't address other problems like the failure of welfare spending without addressing the land problem first.


"*Solving the land question means the solving of all 
social questions*… Possession of land by people who 
do not use it is immoral - just like the possession 
of slaves."
_- Leo Tolstoy_

----------


## Philmanoman

Good thing is...LVT will never happen...so they can post all they want if it makes them feel good.

----------


## Roy L

> Good thing is...LVT will never happen...so they can post all they want if it makes them feel good.


It will definitely happen.  That is certain.  The only question is, how much more destruction must be done, how many more millions of human sacrifices must be laid on the altar of the Great God Property before liberty, justice and prosperity are finally permitted to emerge?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Good thing is...LVT will never happen...so they can post all they want if it makes them feel good.


The good thing?  Amazing!  That shows a closed mind. 

Get to know about it. It isn't difficult.  You can't be totally incapable of absorbing simple facts.  It is used all over the world, and even the USA, in varying degrees.  Ireland have a plan to roll it out on a local level.

It has to happen as we can't go on the way we are.  How many more wars, famines and world-wide crashed do you need for proof?  You do not want to solve all social questions?

----------


## awake

Money sucked up by Leviathan and spent by its minions is the cause of poverty. Every now and again the parasite class promise to cure the problem they cause, but it is like.

The small pockets of poor people in the moderately capitalist west is nothing compared the socialist produced poverty that seems to woo the delusional and violent.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Money sucked up by Leviathan and spent by its minions is the cause of poverty. Every now and again the parasite class promise to cure the problem they cause, but it is like.
> 
> The small pockets of poor people in the moderately capitalist west is nothing compared the socialist produced poverty that seems to woo the delusional and violent.


The worst poverty is in extreme right-wing regimes - but I am not picking at straws.  But when there is extreme privilege and lack of liberty there is poverty, no matter if left, right, up, down or under.

----------


## Origanalist

> No.  Like Steven, you have to lie about what I have plainly written.  Once you have chosen to serve evil, you will and must lie.  You have no choice.
> 
> I stated explicitly that human rights include _property_ in the fruits of one's labor.  You know this.  You merely decided deliberately to lie about it.
> 
> You were mistaken.  Our remote ancestors had freedom and liberty, and they never imagined property in land or information.
> 
> Content = 0.  You are just using "collective" as a general-purpose pejorative.  Try addressing what I have actually said.
> 
> Commitment to liberty, justice and truth.


Hey there Roy L, you can take that $#@! about serving evil and lying and run it right up your little collectivist rear end. I want NO part of what you are selling. And I dont own any real estate at all.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Hey there Roy L, you can take that $#@! about serving evil and lying and run it right up your little collectivist rear end.


What collectivism are you on about?  No Geoist has pushed that angle for sure.  Just understand, it is easier that way.

----------


## redbluepill

> I must have missed a turn somewhere, I have always thought that the right to own your own real property and intellectual property were the foundations for freedom and liberty.


So slave ownership is part of the foundation of liberty?





> Where is this stuff coming from?


From Nock, Paine, Jefferson, Chodorov, Foldvary, etc.

----------


## Origanalist

Slave ownership was never considered property in my lifetime in this country.

----------


## redbluepill

> You're lying.  There is nothing "collectivist" about liberty, justice and truth, and you know it.  "Collectivist" is just your general-purpose pejorative, your substitute for actual thought.


Georgist Poster: We all have an equal right to free speech.

Neolibertarian Poster: What do you mean "we all" and "equal"?! Are you some sort of communist!?

----------


## redbluepill

> Good thing is...LVT will never happen...so they can post all they want if it makes them feel good.


Never say never. LVT is implemented all around the world. Pay attention!

----------


## redbluepill

> Slave ownership was never considered property in my lifetime in this country.


What does your lifetime have to do with it? Slaves were once considered property just as we consider land property today. Just because you have property in something doesnt mean you have liberty.

----------


## Origanalist

> What does your lifetime have to do with it? Slaves were once considered property just as we consider land property today. Just because you have property in something doesnt mean you have liberty.


What does mean you have liberty?

----------


## redbluepill

> What does mean you have liberty?


Does a slave have liberty?

----------


## Origanalist

> Does a slave have liberty?


Non-answer.

----------


## redbluepill

> Non-answer.


Humor me.

----------


## redbluepill

The point is some things are not subject to being property. Most libertarians accept this (in theory at least) when it comes to human beings. Where does REAL property come from? The fruits of labor. Slaves were/are not the fruits of labor and so cannot be rightfully claimed as property. Land is not the fruit of anyone's labor, therefore it is not property the way a house, a boat, or a garden is property. One can privately possess land but that mean forcefully excluding others from what they also have an equal right to. Thus the LVT is advocated as compensation.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> "*Solving the land question means the solving of all 
> social questions* Possession of land by people who 
> do not use it is immoral - just like the possession 
> of slaves."
> _- Leo Tolstoy_


So if I keep my slaves busy, then my owning of slaves is morally justified?

----------


## redbluepill

> Slave ownership was never considered property in my lifetime in this country.


Slavery is very much alive in this country. I suggest googling it. But I digress.

----------


## Origanalist

> The point is some things are not subject to being property. Most libertarians accept this (in theory at least) when it comes to human beings. Where does REAL property come from? The fruits of labor. Slaves were/are not the fruits of labor and so cannot be rightfully claimed as property. Land is not the fruit of anyone's labor, therefore it is not property the way a house, a boat, or a garden is property. One can privately possess land but that mean forcefully excluding others from what they also have an equal right to. Thus the LVT is advocated as compensation.


I'm just not buying it. You can't build a house without propery, or plant a garden.  If the land belongs to everybody, wouldn't it be immoral to build a house or plant a garden?

----------


## redbluepill

> I'm just not buying it. You can't build a house without propery, or plant a garden.  If the land belongs to everybody, wouldn't it be immoral to build a house or plant a garden?


No. Having an equal right to access the land means being able to do what you want on the land. The LVT allows you to do all those things while paying for the privilege to exclude others from that land.

----------


## Origanalist

> No. Having an equal right to access the land means being able to do what you want on the land.* The LVT allows you to do all those things while paying for the privilege to exclude others from that land.*


Doesn't having the title to that land already do that? How is it determined what land you are to occupy? Who decides? What if someone else wants the land you want?

----------


## redbluepill

> Doesn't having the title to that land already do that?


Having a title to land has nothing to do with the land value tax.




> How is it determined what land you are to occupy?


You still keep the land you possess.




> Who decides?


Not the government if thats what you're getting at. Individuals and markets still decide on these matters. But when landlords actually have to pay back the wealth created by the community (which is crystallized into land value) a few things happen: land speculation is discouraged, productive use of land is encouraged, and more individuals would be able to afford to have a piece of the land.

All this ultimately leads to smaller government, fewer people on welfare, less government waste, etc. There's a reason why many Georgists are libertarians.




> What if someone else wants the land you want?


Land would still be traded privately as it is today.

----------


## Origanalist

> But when landlords actually have to pay back the wealth created by the community....


Please explain what is meant by this, in concrete terms. By the way, thank you for being civil and I intend to study this further.

----------


## redbluepill

> Please explain what is meant by this, in concrete terms.


The value of land increases through the human activity. For example, build a house on the land you possess and its value goes up. Likewise, if your neighbor builds a hospital next door YOUR land value goes up. That is one example. Most people are surrounded by several individuals (aka a community) who's actions create an increase in land values. The LVT returns wealth to the individuals of the community. Keep in mind, the LVT would get rid of property taxes as they are now (and frankly all other taxes). You would no longer pay a tax on your house or any other improvements you made on the land.




> By the way, thank you for being civil and I intend to study this further.


No problem. This discussion can get abrasive at times. While geolibertarians and other libertarians agree on 90% of issues this is one that will be debated for a very long time.

If I may suggest some online sources for further study:

https://sites.google.com/site/justin...#landownership
http://www.landvaluetax.org/
http://savingcommunities.org/
http://www.wealthandwant.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itO7OoKtNUc

----------


## Origanalist

> If I may suggest some online sources for further study:
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/justin...#landownership
> http://www.landvaluetax.org/
> http://savingcommunities.org/
> http://www.wealthandwant.com/
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itO7OoKtNUc


Excellent, thanks.

----------


## Steven Douglas

Told you the thread would get hijacked. Oh well, there it is. 




> Georgist Poster: We all have an equal right to free speech.
> 
> Neolibertarian Poster: What do you mean "we all" and "equal"?! Are you some sort of communist!?


More apt and far more to the point:

Georgist:  Everyone has an equal right of access to all scarce, non-renewable resources, beginning with land. Therefore everyone has an equal right _to an economic return on the annual rental value_ of those scarce resources.  The community is comprised of everyone.  Therefore, the community has a right to _an economic return on the rental value of all scarce resources_, beginning with, but certainly not limited to, land. 

It's funny you should use the right to free speech as an example.  Major networks are using scarce airwave/bandwidth resources that belong equally to all. Proposing a tax on so-called "free speech" when using those scarce resources would be a means of compensating others for their deprivation under Georgist logic.  A good example of an attempt to collectivize rights in this way is the decidedly leftist Fairness Doctrine. 

Geolibs who insist that a Land Value Tax is a tax on the rental value of unimproved land only can be ignored, because the Georgist principle, not the specific implementation proposal, extends to virtually any scarce resource for which monopoly ownership can be assigned by government fiat.  Here's an example from a geolib group in Australia, among many others:  




> http://www.prosper.org.au/our-policy/
> This can be done by studying Georgist economics. 
> 
> *Those who benefit from the use of scarce resources, particularly natural resources, should be required to pay something back to the community for this privilege.* 
> 
> It is a simple but far-reaching change – stop punishing labour with taxes and *start collecting the rental value of land and licensed monopolies*. This can be achieved by using Land Value Tax to raise the majority of government revenue.
> 
> Elsewise, those that have the privileged of such ‘ownership’ of a licensed monopoly (say *a bank license, a land holder or an owner of a unique website URL*) can use their power to push prices higher and higher in what is known as ‘rent-seeking’.


See that? Any scarce resource.  A bank license, land -- a unique website URL even!  

Here's a tax policy blurb from the UK Parliament that shows how the Georgist principle is extended, as a matter of principle and tax policy, _as proposed even today_: 




> http://www.publications.parliament.u...policy/m24.htm
> 3.9. Whereas a *tax on the annual rental value of all natural resources such as oil, gas, airwaves etc* and an annual Land Value Tax on all land will not only enable the Government to protect our land and natural resources from waste but will also provide a sustainable source of income to pay for public services that captures at least a part of the unearned economic benefit which is reflected in land values.


Once again, any naturally (physically or logically) scarce resource. Land is listed separately, but only as a subset of scarce natural resources listed within that same paragraph, as the "Georgist" principle is the same in all cases. So in addition to a bank license, land, a unique website URL, we can add to that oil, gas, airwaves. How about gold and silver?  That's scarce and non-renewable. 

My libertarian view would be that each of us has equal inalienable rights, which are not and cannot be collectivized, or held as a collectivized trust by anyone, are inherent to each and every individual. The community is nothing more than a nebulous, transient blob comprised of individuals different interests, each with _individual inalienable rights of ownership, or exclusive possession of scarce natural resources_, the exercise and fruits of which will be different for each. The state is not the community, but rather a servant to all individuals, to secure their individual _rights of exclusive use and benefit_ from scarce resources, including the acquisition of property rights in that scarce resource known as land. 

What Georgist economics proposes is that we all (jointly and collectively ONLY) have an equal right of liberty access, not just to all land, but _to an actual economic return_ on the value of land rents (the annual rental value).  Exclusive access to land is a basic requirement for life and commerce, but this cannot be granted, under Georgist logic, without violating the rights of everyone else who would otherwise been at liberty to access and benefit from the use of that same scarce resource.  This is resolved by "just compensation" from the exclusive user of that resource to those deprived.  But such compensation does not go directly to the individuals who are said to have been deprived (many of whom are not even born yet), but rather to "the community".  The Georgist/Geolib presumption is that whatever is paid to "the community" (read, the State which receives on behalf of the community, and is thereby conflated with "community") is assumed to equate to "just compensation" to the individuals in that community, _whose equal rights to an economic return on the annual rental value of all scarce resources thusly taxed_ have been collectivized. 

In a nutshell, Georgist economics makes licensed, privileged renters out of everyone who has competing interests in the same naturally scarce, non-renewable resource. Beginning with land. The collectivized *rights to an economic return* on the annual rental value of such scarce resources are converted to a perpetually taxed (conditional) exclusive usage privilege to each and every competing individual.

That's not exactly what Roy and some others are _proposing_, but that's irrelevant to the actual reach of the principle, as it is being laid out and proposed by those who are actually in power.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The point is some things are not subject to being property. Most libertarians accept this (in theory at least) when it comes to human beings. Where does REAL property come from? The fruits of labor. Slaves were/are not the fruits of labor and so cannot be rightfully claimed as property. Land is not the fruit of anyone's labor, therefore it is not property the way a house, a boat, or a garden is property. One can privately possess land but that mean forcefully excluding others from what they also have an *equal* right to. Thus the LVT is advocated as compensation.


Equal? They will accuse you of being a Commie   Many are conditioned to accept an unfair society, which acts against themselves, and those who advocate fairness and economic justice must be Commies in their conditioned brains.  Sad really.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> What if someone else wants the land you want? 
> 			
> 		
> 
> Land would still be traded privately as it is today.


The point about Geoism implementation is that all stays the same.  It is primarily a tax shift.  Business behavior stays the same.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Geolibs who insist that a Land Value Tax is a tax on the rental value of unimproved land only can be ignored, because the Georgist principle, not the specific implementation proposal, extends to virtually any scarce resource for which monopoly ownership can be assigned by government fiat.  Here's an example from a geolib group in Australia, among many others:  
> 
> See that? Any scarce resource.  A *bank license*, land -- a *unique website URL* even!


Are really you so dumb?  You have been told repeatedly that Geoism is related LAND and its RESOURCES. Web site?  You must be paid to write this drivel on these forums.  No one can be so silly.

Gold when in land is a RESOUCE that no one made (RESOUCES, also the sea bed, the sea are classed as LAND).  Extract the gold, apply Capital and it becomes Capital, not LAND.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Excellent, thanks.


There are 14 ASPECTS OF LAND-VALUE TAXATION 

*GOVERNMENT*

LVT, adds to the national income.The collection﻿ cost of LVT is much less than on other kinds of production-based tax. The location of land is known to the inch, so the tax cannot be avoided.With LVT, the national economy stabilizes. It ceases to have the 18 year housing boom and bust cycle.

*LAND OWNERS*

LVT is progressive, owners pay tax in proportion to the site value.Owners pay LVT regardless of how the land is used. When it is leased to tenants some or most of the resulting ground-rent is the tax.LVT stops speculation in land prices. Withholding land from proper﻿ use is too costly.The introduction of LVT reduces the sales price of sites, although their value (potential usefulness) may continue to grow.With LVT, land owners are unable to pass the tax to their tenant renters, due to competition for land use.After LVT is introduced, speculators in land values will want to foreclose on mortgages and withdraw money for re-investment. 

*COMMUNITY*

With LVT, there is incentive to use land for production, rather than it lying idle or being partly used.With LVT, greater working opportunities﻿ exist due to cheaper land and a greater number of available sites. Consumer goods become cheaper since entrepreneurs have less difficulty in starting-up and running their businesses. Demand grows, unemployment decreases.As LVT is introduced, investment is withdrawn from land and placed in durable capital goods and enterprise activities, not parasitical activities.

*ETHICS*

The collection of taxes from productive effort and commerce is socially unjust. LVT replaces this extortion by gathering the surplus rental income which comes without exertion. It is a natural system of money-gathering.Bribery and﻿ corruption cease with LVT. Before, this was due to the leaking of news of municipal plans for housing development.

----------


## erowe1

> There are 14 ASPECTS OF LAND-VALUE TAXATION 
> 
> *GOVERNMENT*
> 
> 
> LVT, adds to the national income.


I assume that by "national income" you mean government revenue, in which case, this point counts as a disadvantage of the LVT.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Are really you so dumb?  You have been told repeatedly that Geoism is related LAND and its RESOURCES. Web site?  You must be paid to write this drivel on these forums.  No one can be so silly.


Are you really so dumb (lazy?) that you can't even click a link to see that what I quoted came directly, VERBATIM, from *a Georgist website*? I don't give a $#@! how you personally slice definitions ("Oh, that group? The one that is pushing for LVT and citing Henry George and 'Georgist economics'? They aren't _real Geoists_...").   I don't care what you label the "ism". Georgists/Geoists/Geolibertarians/Other/WTF? all have LVT as their agenda -- the single common defining characteristic of all of them. So they're your people, baby, all spawned from the same Henry George egg. 

And are you really so dumb as not to realize that repeatedly saying the same thing doesn't make it more or less true or false? 

Now, on the assumption that you're not completely daft, here it is again, this time without using the quote feature so that it won't be dropped if you use the quote feature yourself: 

* * * * *
SOURCE: http://www.prosper.org.au/our-policy/ (_really, it's not my website, I didn't make this $#@! up_):

This can be done by studying *Georgist economics.* Those who benefit from the use of *scarce resources, particularly natural resources*, should be required to pay something back to the community for this privilege. 

It is a simple but far-reaching change – stop punishing labour with taxes and start *collecting the rental value of land and licensed monopolies*. This can be achieved by using Land Value Tax to raise the majority of government revenue.

Elsewise, *those that have the privileged of such ‘ownership’ of a licensed monopoly (say a bank license, a land holder or an owner of a unique website URL)* can use their power to push prices higher and higher in what is known as ‘rent-seeking’. 
* * * * *

They go on further to say:

"Prosper Australia advocates the elimination of all taxes and their replacement with a *Land Value Tax*. If everybody in Australia paid 6% of the value of the resources they controlled to the Government, then other taxes would be unnecessary. 

This would cover all resources such as *land, water, oil, coal, and the electromagnetic spectrum. Licensed monopolies in DNA, utility ownership and taxi licences* should pay a yearly fee based on their ever increasing value."

----------


## Roy L

> Money sucked up by Leviathan and spent by its minions is the cause of poverty.


No, you are just telling stupid, evil lies.  Every single wealthy country on earth has a large government sector.  Every single one.  Every single country on earth that has a small government sector is a poverty-stricken $#!+-hole.  Every single one.  Your claim is the exact, diametric opposite of the truth.

You are just telling stupid, evil lies.  Stop telling such stupid lies.  Your stupid lies are impoverishing billions, and* killing millions of innocent people EVERY YEAR.*  How many more billions of human sacrifices will you lay on the altar of your Great God Property?



> Every now and again the parasite class promise to cure the problem they cause, but it is like.


Indeed.  The parasite class are the privileged, especially landowners; and it is not merely every now and then but CONSTANTLY that they promise to cure the problem they cause, if only society would give them double or triple the large fraction of GDP they currently get for doing nothing. 



> The small pockets of poor people in the moderately capitalist west is nothing compared the socialist produced poverty that seems to woo the delusional and violent.


"Socialist-produced poverty"??  Talk about delusional.  There are only a handful of socialist countries left in the world -- Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, maybe a few others, depending on how loosely you want to gauge it -- and the vast, deep poverty that is *UNIVERSALLY* seen in _capitalist_ countries with small government sectors -- Pakistan, the Philippines, Haiti, Bangladesh, Guatemala, Nigeria, etc. -- cannot be blamed on socialism by anyone but a flat-out liar.

----------


## Origanalist

> No, you are just telling stupid, evil lies.  Every single wealthy country on earth has a large government sector.  Every single one.  Every single country on earth that has a small government sector is a poverty-stricken $#!+-hole.  Every single one.  Your claim is the exact, diametric opposite of the truth.
> 
> You are just telling stupid, evil lies.  Stop telling such stupid lies.  Your stupid lies are impoverishing billions, and* killing millions of innocent people EVERY YEAR.*  How many more billion of human sacrifices will you lay on the altar of your Great God Property?
> 
> Indeed.  The parasite class are the privileged, especially landowners; and it is not merely every now and then but CONSTANTLY that they promise to cure the problem they cause, if only society would give them double or triple the large fraction of GDP they currently get for doing nothing. 
> 
> "Socialist-produced poverty"??  Talk about delusional.  There are only a handful of socialist countries left in the world -- Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, maybe a few others, depending on how loosely you want to gauge it -- and the vast, deep poverty that is *UNIVERSALLY* seen in _capitalist_ countries with small government sectors -- Pakistan, the Philippines, Haiti, Bangladesh, Guatemala, Nigeria, etc. -- cannot be blamed on socialism by anyone but a flat-out liar.


Roy, you need to back off on the drama and name calling. All you're doing is turning people away.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> There are only a handful of socialist countries left in the world -- Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, maybe a few others, depending on how loosely you want to gauge it --


Gauge it as tightly as you want to, you're so far out of the real world and so hung up on your own personal definitions and gauges that you wouldn't know a socialist country if it bit you on the U S of A.

----------


## Roy L

> Hey there Roy L, you can take that $#@! about serving evil and lying and run it right up your little collectivist rear end.


<yawn>  I have identified the facts.  You are using the term, "collectivist" as a general-purpose pejorative, with no attempt to use it accurately or meaningfully.  There is nothing collectivist about restoring the individual right to liberty, which private landowning has removed.



> I want NO part of what you are selling. And I dont own any real estate at all.


Then you are that most pathetic of creatures: the slave who kisses his master's whip, and gratefully licks the fetters that chain him to the treadmill.

----------


## Origanalist

> Then you are that most pathetic of creatures: the slave who kisses his master's whip, and gratefully licks the fetters that chain him to the treadmill.


And you are a self absorbed, self rightous jackass.

----------


## Roy L

> What does mean you have liberty?


Others do not forcibly prevent you from doing what you would otherwise be free to do.

----------


## Roy L

> So if I keep my slaves busy, then my owning of slaves is morally justified?


Try reading it again.  The possession of slaves removes their liberty.  The possession of land by people who do not use it removes the liberty of all who would otherwise be free to use it.

The only difference between owning a slave and owning land is that when you own a slave, you remove all of one person's rights, while when you own land, you remove one of all persons' rights.  And just as one person being a slave doesn't make much difference to everyone else, one acre of land being owned doesn't make much difference, either.  But just as owning most of the people as slaves would mean liberty had been effectively removed from society, so private ownership of most of the good land means liberty has effectively been removed from society.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> The only difference between owning a slave and owning land is that when you own a slave, you remove all of one person's rights, while when you own land, you remove one of all persons' rights.

----------


## Roy L

> I'm just not buying it.


You're just not thinking about it.



> You can't build a house without propery, or plant a garden.


But in fact, our remote ancestors built houses and planted gardens for thousands of years without owning the land under them.  In some places, people still do.



> If the land belongs to everybody, wouldn't it be immoral to build a house or plant a garden?


It belongs to nobody.  Government administers possession and use of land in any case -- that's what government IS: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land -- but only in the capacity of trustee, not of owner.  It's only immoral to build a house or plant a garden if you remove others' rights to use the land without making just compensation for what you have deprived them of.

----------


## Roy L

> Slave ownership was never considered property in my lifetime in this country.


Slave owners probably tried to rationalize their property "rights" with "logic" identical to yours:

Abolitionist: "Not all property is rightful.  People cannot rightly be property any more than the sun was rightly the property of the Inca king."
Apologist for slavery: "The sun was never considered property in my lifetime in this country."

----------


## Roy L

> Doesn't having the title to that land already do that?


No, having the title empowers you to remove others' rights to use the land WITHOUT making just compensation.



> How is it determined what land you are to occupy?


You occupy whatever land you are willing to pay more than anyone else for.  It's much like the current system in that respect, except that you are paying the right party for the advantages the location confers on you, and you don't get an indefinitely long stream of future benefits in return for a one-time payment.



> Who decides?


People decide in the market.



> What if someone else wants the land you want?


Many people want to use it.  Which will pay the others most for denying them the use of it?

----------


## Tod

There is LOTS of land for sale.  I say, "get your own d*mn land and quit trying to take mine away from me!"  I worked my butt off to get this land and if you want some and don't have your own it isn't because there isn't any available, it is because you are too d*mn lazy to get your own honestly.

To paraphrase the song, "Hey, you, get off of my land!"

----------


## Roy L

> 


Thanks for proving that you know I am right.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Thanks for proving that you know I am right.


Any time, Reverend Jones.



Drink up!

----------


## Roy L

> Please explain what is meant by this, in concrete terms.


The value of land is capitalized after-tax land rent (this is not the rent you are used to, but a special term in economics -- Google "Law of Rent").  Rent is the economic advantage the user can obtain by using the land (location, location, location) in its most productive (in economics, "efficient") use.  This economic advantage arises from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location.  The landowner does not create or affect land rent.  He is merely privileged to charge others full market value for the benefits that government, the community and nature provide.  THAT'S WHY LAND COSTS SO MUCH.  A land title is effectively a license to steal by pocketing other people's taxes.

----------


## Roy L

> I assume that by "national income" you mean government revenue, in which case, this point counts as a disadvantage of the LVT.


No, it does not mean government revenue.  It means GDP (or whatever statistic you prefer to use to measure economic activity or prosperity).  In fact, LVT would relieve so many social and economic problems that a lot of current government spending would no longer be needed, and government could finally shrink.  That fact is central to the problem this thread is about**: in the absence of LVT, more and more government spending to relieve poverty *DOES NOT* and *CANNOT WORK*, because it just increases the rent the poor must pay their landlords.  That is a matter of immutable economic law.

----------


## Tod

Land costs so much because a land title is effectively a "license to steal"?  So the buyer of the land IS paying?  If a "license to steal" was all that valuable, the land would cost more and as the value of the "theft" is less, the cost of the land is less.

Sounds like the buyer is paying for what he is getting.  And it sounds like advocates for LVT aren't content that the buyer has paid for what he got, they want to steal it back by attaching themselves like parasites to the buyer and render the labor he put into earning the money to buy the land mere slave labor.

----------


## Roy L

> Roy, you need to back off on the drama and name calling. All you're doing is turning people away.


I will continue to tell the truth.  I can't help it if the literal truth IS that dramatic, and I can't help the fact that those who lie to rationalize privilege, justify injustice and excuse evil always prove that they are the most despicable and dishonest scum on earth.

----------


## Roy L

> Gauge it as tightly as you want to, you're so far out of the real world and so hung up on your own personal definitions and gauges that you wouldn't know a socialist country if it bit you on the U S of A.


No, you are just spewing stupid garbage again.  Socialism has a specific meaning in the context of public policy: collective ownership of the means of production (land and capital).  It does not mean whatever public policy or societal arrangements you happen to disapprove of.  It does not mean collective ownership of land OR capital.

To ascribe poverty in an overwhelmingly capitalist world to socialism when only a handful of minor countries are socialist is just an idiotic lie.

----------


## Roy L

> Land costs so much because a land title is effectively a "license to steal"?


Correct.



> So the buyer of the land IS paying?


Of course.  Just as he would have to pay for a literal license to steal if government were issuing them.  This is called, "rent seeking behavior."  It is wasteful and bad.



> If a "license to steal" was all that valuable, the land would cost more and as the value of the "theft" is less, the cost of the land is less.


??  Could you try saying that in English?



> Sounds like the buyer is paying for what he is getting.


Right.  He is just paying the wrong party, the same as someone buying a slave pays for what he is getting -- the slave's labor -- but pays the wrong party.



> And it sounds like advocates for LVT aren't content that the buyer has paid for what he got,


That is correct.  We want him to pay the right party, and we don't want the wrong party to be getting something for nothing, like a slave owner.  Same as the abolitionists wanted the slave to be paid for his labor, not his owner.



> they want to steal it back


We want to eliminate the theft, stop lying.



> by attaching themselves like parasites to the buyer


No, you are just lying.  LVT ensures that everyone gets what he earns, so no one gets to be a parasite.  *Lack* of LVT *GUARANTEES* that the landowner is *AUTOMATICALLY* a parasite.



> and render the labor he put into earning the money to buy the land mere slave labor.


ROTFL!!  And I suppose in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," the emancipation of slaves rendered whatever labor the slave owner put into earning the money to buy his slave mere slave labor...?  If slavery is not continued indefinitely, it is the slave *owners* who are doing slave labor, and not the slaves?

No, Tod, you are just telling stupid lies.  The fact that the buyer of a slave may have earned the money by his labor does not alter the fact that the slave is the one performing the slave labor, not his owner.  And if the slave is emancipated, it does not somehow make his erstwhile owner's labor "slave labor."  That is just a stupid, evil lie from you.

----------


## oyarde

This has to be close to one of the most screwed up threads I have ever read. Slavery ,considering a person as property , taxes , theft, welfare , re distibution , collectivism , socialism , communism etc are all bad , very $#@!ing bad .This conversation does not qualify as coherent , when I was about 17 , I would lay out a couple  , open , empty shotguns , throw a couple of shells in the dirt  , somebody goes for it and rolls the dice , or , everybody shuts the hell up about what belongs to others or goes home .... I am much , much older now , grew up in a time where you raised , shared , grew , worked , bartered  or bought your needs , or did without and feel damaged by reading this ...... Avg person when I was 17 , probably lower IQ THAN NOW , but , strangely enough much smarter about possesion ...

----------


## Roy L

> And you are a self absorbed, self rightous jackass.


All I am offering is the truth, nothing more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED8NF...eature=related

----------


## Roy L

> There is LOTS of land for sale.  I say, "get your own d*mn land and quit trying to take mine away from me!"  I worked my butt off to get this land and if you want some and don't have your own it isn't because there isn't any available, it is because you are too d*mn lazy to get your own honestly.
> 
> To paraphrase the song, "Hey, you, get off of my land!"


_"There are LOTS of slaves for sale.  I say, "get your own d*mn slaves and quit trying to take mine away from me!"  I worked my butt off to get these slaves and if you want some and don't have your own it isn't because there aren't any available, it is because you are too d*mn lazy to get your own honestly.

To paraphrase the song, "Hey, you, hands off of my slaves!"_

Now, please explain how one can get one's own slaves "honestly."

----------


## Roy L

> This conversation does not qualify as coherent ,


One side of it doesn't, anyway.



> when I was about 17 , I would lay out a couple  , open , empty shotguns , throw a couple of shells in the dirt  , somebody goes for it and rolls the dice , or , everybody shuts the hell up about what belongs to others or goes home .... I am much , much older now , grew up in a time where you raised , shared , grew , worked , bartered  or bought your needs , or did without and feel damaged by reading this ...... Avg person when I was 17 , probably lower IQ THAN NOW , but , strangely enough much smarter about possesion ...


The shotguns scenario is a good allegory for how land is made into property: whoever grabs first, or threatens more convincingly, gets the land.

----------


## oyarde

> One side of it doesn't, anyway.
> 
> The shotguns scenario is a good allegory for how land is made into property: whoever grabs first, or threatens more convincingly, gets the land.


Oh , I may have a few ,not really an allegory ...  but I noticed you sliced the quote ,bad manners ...

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Socialism has a specific meaning in the context of public policy: collective ownership of the means of production (land and capital).


Collective monopoly ownership, public or private, of any means of production -- land, labor, capital, or any combination thereof -- is socialist in its inception, and involuntary servitude to any monopolistic state that tries it.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> There is LOTS of land for sale.  I say, "get your own d*mn land and quit trying to take mine away from me!"  I worked my butt off to get this land and if you want some and don't have your own it isn't because there isn't any available, it is because you are too d*mn lazy to get your own honestly.


It is best to understand properly. What you wrote indicates no knowledge of Geoism. No one is saying they want to take your land. What is yours is yours.  BUT!!!  The increased value of that land YOU did NOT create.  That was created by community activity that crystallizes into land values.  The community reclaims this wealth that soaked into the land (land cannot be moved, so it cannot be moved to a place of low land values).  But with Geoism the state does not take your private wealth from you - no Income or Sales taxes.  It rolls back the state and gives more freedom.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Land costs so much because a land title is effectively a "license to steal"?  So the buyer of the land IS paying?  If a "license to steal" was all that valuable, the land would cost more and as the value of the "theft" is less, the cost of the land is less.


A man buys land at $100,000.  A the point of buying all is equal. In three years it is worth $150,000.  The $50,000 increase in the three years was NOT created by HIM.  The community created that wealth. It is COMMONWEALTH. The landowner effectively is stealing from the community.  LVT redresses that imbalance.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> 


Still posting silly cartoons as you have no grounds for debate.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I assume that by "national income" you mean government revenue, in which case, this point counts as a disadvantage of the LVT.


How does a government get its revenue to run its services?  Do you think it is cast down from the heavens?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Collective monopoly ownership, public or private,


Geonomics is far removed from that. It is an economic system NOT a political system.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Geonomics is far removed from that. It is an economic system NOT a political system.


Keep telling yourself that.  After you "have been repeatedly told" that from yourself, it will sound truer and truer.  I hate to break it to you, but even Marxism is "an economic system".  It just so happens to require political implementation...no differently than Georgist "Geonomics".   

Geonomics. ::: snicker ::: Almost sounds...academic-ish. Ah, the persuasive power of a euphemism when brandished by a glassy-eyed believer.  Give them a badge, a whistle, and a name with an air of legitimacy about it, and they'll follow you anywhere. 




> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
> 
> Georgism (also called Geoism or *Geonomics*) is *an economic philosophy and ideology* that holds that people own what they create, but that things found in nature, most importantly land, belong equally to all. The Georgist philosophy is based on the writings of the economist Henry George (1839–1897), and is usually associated with the idea of a single tax on the value of land. Georgists argue that a tax on land value is economically efficient, fair and equitable; and that it can generate sufficient revenue so that other taxes (e.g. taxes on profits, sales or income), which are less fair and efficient, can be reduced or eliminated. A tax on land value has been described by many as a progressive tax, since it would be paid primarily by the wealthy, and would reduce income inequality.


Oopsie - there must be some anti-geonomics subversive elements on Wikipedia, because I could swear that it reads as if Geonomics was an economic philosophy and ideology (read=NORMATIVE=SHOULD=OUGHT=POLITICAL).

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Keep telling yourself that.  After you "have been repeatedly told" that from yourself, it will sound truer and truer.


You posted this:
"Georgism (also called Geoism or Geonomics) is an *economic* philosophy and ideology"

Note: economic not political.   Even the most intellectually challenged can see that.

Understand it as you have lot to gain. A hell of a lot.

----------


## Roy L

> Collective monopoly ownership, public or private, of any means of production -- land, labor, capital, or any combination thereof -- is socialist in its inception, and involuntary servitude to any monopolistic state that tries it.


Nope.  That's just a flat-out lie.  You're *lying*, Steven.  _LYING_.  If your lie were true, any country where the roads are publicly owned -- a "collective monopoly" -- would be socialist, including the USA.

Once you have chosen to serve evil by rationalizing privilege and justifying injustice, you HAVE to lie.  You have no choice.  Therefore, those who oppose recovery of publicly created land rent for public purposes and benefit ALWAYS have to lie.  *ALWAYS*.  That is a natural law of the universe.  There has never been an exception to that law, and there never will be.

----------


## Roy L

> Keep telling yourself that.


He's telling *you* to stop *lying* about it, and so am I: *STOP LYING*.



> I hate to break it to you, but even Marxism is "an economic system".


Lie.  It is a political philosophy.  The associated economic systems are socialism and communism.



> It just so happens to require political implementation...no differently than Georgist "Geonomics".


Again, that is just a flat-out lie.  Marxism is a political philosophy, a key component of which is the epistemology of dialectical materialism.  There is nothing remotely similar in geoism, which is simply the application of objective, scientific fact to the principle of equal human rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor.



> Geonomics. ::: snicker ::: Almost sounds...academic-ish. Ah, the persuasive power of a euphemism when brandished by a glassy-eyed believer.  Give them a badge, a whistle, and a name with an air of legitimacy about it, and they'll follow you anywhere.


Stupid, dishonest filth beneath comment.



> Oopsie - there must be some anti-geonomics subversive elements on Wikipedia, because I could swear that it reads as if Geonomics was an economic philosophy and ideology


Which it is, so thank you for admitting that you lied.  As usual.



> (read=NORMATIVE=SHOULD=OUGHT=POLITICAL).


Another stupid lie.  NORMATIVE=SHOULD=OUGHT=*MORAL*, not *POLITICAL*.

You just lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> But in fact, our remote ancestors built houses and planted gardens for thousands of years without owning the land under them.  In some places, people still do.


Letchworth Garden City in England was the world's first over 100 years ago.  The idea was based on an architectural plan for good living. But the creator, Ebenezer Howard was an admirer of Henry George but could not see LVT getting passed soon, so he compromized by having all the land owned in Letchworth by a "foundation" and land leased to the occupiers, as was in Hong Kong - *a local land tax.*  The lease paid (rent) by the occupants went on building infrastructure and facilities for the population. It was an amazing success.

Garden cities have been copied all over the world. A huge amount in the USA.  But people forget why Letchworth was so successful in the first place.  No one owned land, *no one speculated in land*. There were no vacant plots left for years on end. All land was used and not idle. The place is vibrant enough.  People could alter homes as they owned the bricks (the house).


_"The towns would be largely independent, managed by the citizens 
who had an economic interest in them, and financed 
by ground rents on the Georgist model. The land 
on which they were to be built was to be owned by a 
group of trustees and leased to the citizens."_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_city_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letchworth_Garden_City

Letchworth Garden City is great place to live and in demand:

----------


## Kluge

Why don't you and Roy make an effort to start a community here in the US based on your alleged principles--stop arguing and show some results. I'm going to suggest Detroit.

Good luck.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Collective monopoly ownership, public or private, of any means of production -- land, labor, capital, or any combination thereof -- is socialist in its inception, and involuntary servitude to any monopolistic state that tries it.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Nope.  That's just a flat-out lie.  You're *lying*, Steven.  _LYING_.  If your lie were true, any country where the roads are publicly owned -- a "collective monopoly" -- would be socialist, including the USA.


Your fallacy of composition colors are flying.  If roads were the only publicly owned lands, that would constitute a monopoly ownership of _certain lands_ used for certain purposes, not all land, or an entire means of production. That particular monopoly on _certain types of land_ would only be socialistic to the degree that a tax cropped up for the stated purpose of wealth redistribution, and not just the payment and upkeep of those roads (in contrast to those toll roads and bridges which collect only what is required for maintenance and improvements). 

A country is socialist to the degree that *the value of entire means of production* (any combination of labor, land and capital) are appropriated to the state for the purposes of conversion, or wealth distribution -- which makes the USA, to the large degree that it is now, the USSA.  




> You posted this:
> "Georgism (also called Geoism or Geonomics) is an *economic* philosophy and ideology"
> 
> Note: economic not political.


Debatable but also moot, as philosophy and ideology certainly are political _when advocated that they be followed and enforced state-wide as policy_.  Did you honestly think you could separate the political components by invoking the word "economic"? News Flash: ALL POLITICAL REGIMES require and include an "economic" component to their ideology and foundational philosophy -- a mechanism for carrying out the very purposes stated in that philosophy and/or ideology.  That includes, once again, Karl Marx, "the economist", with his Labour Theory of Value, who was no less an _economic philosopher and ideologue_ than Henry George.  

Your logic is like saying that an atomic bomb is really only about physics, which can fit into any "ism". But Georgiesm/Geonomics goes further than that, as it actually delves into what OUGHT (normative) to be considered a civil right.  It not only attempts to model an economy based on its own bomb design, it actually advocates the premises upon which such bombs OUGHT to be deployed.  

_"people own what they create, but .... things found in nature, most importantly land, belong equally to all."_

When you advocate state-wide implementation of any philosophy or ideology, economic or otherwise, and use terms like "fair" and "justice" and "equitable" and "rights" you are talking STRICTLY POLITICAL.  That it can be described in terms of an economic theory or in an economic model is irrelevant.  Hell, Austrian and Classical economics theories can attempt to model and describe Socialist economics regimes. The effects of almost anything, _including mass genocide_, can be described in an economic model (i.e., "If _n_ percent of the population disappears, it will have _x_ effect on the economy."). But to _advocate_ the IF-THEN of any theoretical model as policy is purely normative (should/ought), and therefore _political_.

----------


## Steven Douglas

Under Georgist Geonomics, everyone in a given community is born with an equal and inalienable right of liberty to access to _all land_*, including the very best land parcels in existence. To reconcile the fact that the best lands are always scarcer than the people who want access to them, it is proposed that the State behave as monopolist rent-collecting landlord over the annual rental value of an entire means of production (all land available). The Georgist LVT game is one wherein _every market participant_** is given equal opportunity to compete over who is willing to pay the State the highest annual rental fee for exclusive access to the best available lands. The annual proceeds, all of which go directly to the State, are automatically considered to be "just compensation" to all the losers. 

*In theory, available land, or "supply" means all land. In reality, however, it means all land that is _actually available to the market_, based on whatever type of land usage is deemed permissible, by state fiat, for a particular parcel of land.  Thus, for example, if a maximum of 1% of all agricultural land in existence is "zoned" for dairy farming, that artificially scarce 1% makes up 100% of the land available, with no other land that can be considered as "supply" for that particular usage.  Likewise, and in turn, land that is zoned exclusively for a particular purpose must be subtracted from the supply of lands for other uses, making those lands more artificially scarce in the process.  

** Market participant means anyone that is permitted to compete. Since land is both a means of production and a requirement for life itself, the monopoly over the annual rent value of all land that is appropriated by the state is essentially being auctioned off, licensed out and parceled out as a monopoly privilege to the highest bidder. Thus, it is theoretically possible that NONE of the "winners" of the *Liberty-Right-of-Access Land Rents Bidding & Reconciliation Game* are even community members, or even among the real people who possess the "equal, inalienable liberty rights" that have been collectivized and auctioned off. But that's alright to the Geoist mind, as the State has their "just compensation"... hanging.

----------


## Roy L

> Why don't you and Roy make an effort to start a community here in the US based on your alleged principles--stop arguing and show some results. I'm going to suggest Detroit.


The experiments have been tried, and the results have always been brilliantly successful, from the California water districts, to Meiji Japan, to Kiaochow, to Akbar the Great's land tax reform in Mughal India, to Kang Xi's land tax reform in China, to the Danish Justice Party government in the 1950s, and on and on and on.  The success has always been directly proportional to the extent to which the principles we have been explaining were adhered to.



> Good luck.


We'd need it.  LVT can't be implemented as long as so many people are eager to tell, and believe, stupid, evil lies about it.

If any government anywhere wants to end unjust and harmful taxes, experience an immediate and permanent economic boom, and dramatically reduce poverty and injustice, we can show them how.  Use the system we propose, and Detroit, repeat, DETROIT will be the most prosperous and livable city in the USA.

But they won't use it, and they won't listen, because of the endless tsunami of stupid, evil lies such as we have seen on this forum.

----------


## Roy L

> Oh , I may have a few ,not really an allegory ...  but I noticed you sliced the quote ,bad manners ...


No, you are wrong.  It is correct netiquette to delete material you are not responding to.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> ...permanent economic boom...


LOL

----------


## Kluge

> The experiments have been tried, and the results have always been brilliantly successful, from the California water districts, to Meiji Japan, to Kiaochow, to Akbar the Great's land tax reform in Mughal India, to Kang Xi's land tax reform in China, to the Danish Justice Party government in the 1950s, and on and on and on.  The success has always been directly proportional to the extent to which the principles we have been explaining were adhered to.
> 
> We'd need it.  LVT can't be implemented as long as so many people are eager to tell, and believe, stupid, evil lies about it.
> 
> If any government anywhere wants to end unjust and harmful taxes, experience an immediate and permanent economic boom, and dramatically reduce poverty and injustice, we can show them how.  Use the system we propose, and Detroit, repeat, DETROIT will be the most prosperous and livable city in the USA.
> 
> But they won't use it, and they won't listen, because of the endless tsunami of stupid, evil lies such as we have seen on this forum.


So why do you bother with such stupid, evil lying liars on this forum and move to one of those brilliantly successful places?

Oh wait, it can't be implemented due to those stupid, evil lying liars.

So how has it always been brilliantly successful if it can't be implemented? But wait, it can--and you can save DETROIT. Well shine up your armor and get to it, you have the results--it's proven, right? Not to mention that you and that other fellow could probably buy most of Detroit for a couple hundred thousand, not a problem for a brilliant person such as yourself, I'm sure.

----------


## Kluge

> LOL


I know, right?

----------


## Origanalist

Who knew that when I started as thread about welfare not working I would end up being a evil lying liar?

----------


## Roy L

> Your fallacy of composition colors are flying.


Nope.  Just a simple reductio ad absurdum to prove you were telling stupid lies again.  You do not know ANY logic, Steven, and would not know a fallacy of composition if it bit you on the goolies.



> If roads were the only publicly owned lands, that would constitute a monopoly ownership of _certain lands_ used for certain purposes, not all land, or an entire means of production.


Nope.  Wrong again.  That's just more stupid, dishonest garbage from you.  ALL land ownership is INHERENTLY a monopoly, and that fact is entirely unrelated to socialism.  It would be the same if no one had ever imagined socialism.  You are just objectively wrong, you know it, and you are lying to try to rescue your previous lies.



> That particular monopoly on _certain types of land_ would only be socialistic to the degree that a tax cropped up for the stated purpose of wealth redistribution, and not just the payment and upkeep of those roads (in contrast to those toll roads and bridges which collect only what is required for maintenance and improvements).


Nope.  You are just spewing more stupid lies, as usual.  Socialism has NOTHING TO DO with taxes for the purpose of wealth redistribution, that's just you lying again.  You're just blathering stupid, dishonest garbage.



> A country is socialist to the degree that *the value of entire means of production* (any combination of labor, land and capital) are appropriated to the state for the purposes of conversion, or wealth distribution -- which makes the USA, to the large degree that it is now, the USSA.


No, that's just you telling more stupid, evil lies about what socialism is.  Telling stupid, evil lies is apparently all you know how to do.



> Debatable but also moot


Nope.  It's not debatable or moot.  You are objectively wrong, and you know it.



> as philosophy and ideology certainly are political _when advocated that they be followed and enforced state-wide as policy_.


Nope.  That's just you telling another stupid, evil lie.  Proof: many people advocate capital punishment, others oppose it.  But neither of these philosophical views is political, even though both sides advocate that their views be followed and enforced state-wide as policy.  The debate is a moral one, not a political one.  Political philosophy concerns HOW laws should be made, not WHAT laws should be made.



> Did you honestly think you could separate the political components by invoking the word "economic"?


Yes, and I was objectively correct, as proved above.



> News Flash: ALL POLITICAL REGIMES require and include an "economic" component to their ideology and oundational philosophy -- a mechanism for carrying out the very purposes stated in that philosophy and/or ideology.


But a political REGIME is not a political PHILOSOPHY, so you are again objectively wrong.  That will continue to happen as long as you presume to dispute with me.



> That includes, once again, Karl Marx, "the economist", with his Labour Theory of Value, who was no less an _economic philosopher and ideologue_ than Henry George.


Marx was indeed an economic philosopher (he is regarded as one of the principal exponents of the classical economics tradition, along with Smith, Ricardo and Mill), as was Henry George.  But Marx was also a political philosopher, which Henry George wasn't.  Advocating certain public policies does not make one a political philosopher.

There are people who advocate laws against experiments on animals, but there is no political content in their arguments.  They are not advocating that animals should vote.



> Your logic is like saying that an atomic bomb is really only about physics, which can fit into any "ism".


Well, except pacifism...



> But Georgiesm/Geonomics goes further than that, as it actually delves into what OUGHT (normative) to be considered a civil right.


No, it merely points out the irreducible logical self-contradiction in the philosophy of those who claim to advocate liberty, but support the forcible removal of people's liberty by landowners, and the effective enslavement of the landless.



> It not only attempts to model an economy based on its own bomb design, it actually advocates the premises upon which such bombs OUGHT to be deployed.


No, it just takes the fundamental rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence for granted. 



> When you advocate state-wide implementation of any philosophy or ideology, economic or otherwise, and use terms like "fair" and "justice" and "equitable" and "rights" you are talking STRICTLY POLITICAL.


Nope.  You're just objectively wrong, as proved above.



> That it can be described in terms of an economic theory or in an economic model is irrelevant.


True, and so is the fact that it is being advocated as public policy, as proved above.



> Hell, Austrian and Classical economics theories can attempt to model and describe Socialist economics regimes. The effects of almost anything, _including mass genocide_, can be described in an economic model (i.e., "If _n_ percent of the population disappears, it will have _x_ effect on the economy."). But to _advocate_ the IF-THEN of any theoretical model as policy is purely normative (should/ought), and therefore _political_.


Nope.  Proved false above.  You've used "collectivist" as a general-purpose pejoriative, now you're doing the same with "political."  It's just stupid, dishonest garbage.  As usual from you.

----------


## Roy L

> Who knew that when I started as thread about welfare not working I would end up being a evil lying liar?


Not me.  I always give the benefit of the doubt, and assumed you were actually interested in solutions.  My bad.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Nope.  Just a simple reductio ad absurdum to prove you were telling stupid lies again.  You do not know ANY logic, Steven, and would not know a fallacy of composition if it bit you on the goolies.


Unresponsive, no argument presented whatsoever. 




> ALL land ownership is INHERENTLY a monopoly...


Speaking of simple(minded?) reductio ad absurdum, pop goes the weasel! By that bizarre reduction, ALL ownership of anything, not just land, constitutes a monopoly. 




> Socialism has NOTHING TO DO with taxes for the purpose of wealth redistribution, that's just you lying again.


With just a modicum of critical thought, you'd see clearly that the very essence of socialism entails state control of any means of production as a means of wealth capture and redistribution ("socialized wealth"). Taxation is just one _mechanism_ by which a given means of production can be controlled and its value, which can easily be distorted once controlled, can be captured. 




> many people advocate capital punishment, others oppose it.  But neither of these philosophical views is political, even though both sides advocate that their views be followed and enforced state-wide as policy.  The debate is a moral one, not a political one.  Political philosophy concerns HOW laws should be made, not WHAT laws should be made.


Unadulterated gibberish. And you claim to have an advanced degree with honors in this $#@!? A privately held philosophical view is just a philosophical view, and nothing more.  The same goes for any moral or even religious view that is privately held.  It MIGHT be considered a political view as well (e.g., to the extent that this influences an actual vote). A political view is ANYTHING (including views that are religious, moral or philosophical in origin) that is advocated as a normative to be followed and enforced state-wide as policy.  ALL PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCACY IS POLITICAL. By definition, and regardless of the origin or rationale.  




> News Flash: ALL POLITICAL REGIMES require and include an "economic" component to their ideology and foundational philosophy -- a mechanism for carrying out the very purposes stated in that philosophy and/or ideology.
> 			
> 		
> 
>  But a political REGIME is not a political PHILOSOPHY, so you are again objectively wrong.


ME: "All internal combustion engines require a fuel source."
ROY: "But an internal combustion ENGINE is not a FUEL SOURCE, so you are objectively wrong."

You have no foundation in logic, Roy. 




> Marx was indeed an economic philosopher (he is regarded as one of the principal exponents of the classical economics tradition, along with Smith, Ricardo and Mill), as was Henry George.  But Marx was also a political philosopher, which Henry George wasn't.  Advocating certain public policies does not make one a political philosopher.


Anyone who advocates public policies is a POLITICAL ADVOCATE.  Go mushy-fuzzy and slice-dice other terms at will as it pleases your sensibilities. Karl Marx and Henry George were both POLITICAL ADVOCATES, who advocated (PUSHED HARD) for the adoption of their economic theories, along with all the rationale and normative underpinnings that are foundational thereto, as public policy (POLITICAL).  




> There are people who advocate laws against experiments on animals, but there is no political content in their arguments.  They are not advocating that animals should vote.


ROFL.  You are the gift that keeps on giving, Roy, did you know that? 

They are not advocating that animals should vote, but rather that PEOPLE in the electorate (legislators, voters, or anyone with political decision-making power) should vote in a certain way on public policy or law as it relates to experiments on animals.  The fact that they are advocating that PEOPLE vote a certain way is what makes it political, Roy.  Your reasoning that it's not political because they're not advocating that animals should vote is a typical, but extremely funny peek into the strange machinations of your mind, and how you shift POV's at will to suit your pretzeled leaps of logic.

----------


## Roy L

> Unresponsive, no argument presented whatsoever.


Lie.



> Speaking of simple(minded?) reductio ad absurdum, pop goes the weasel! By that bizarre reduction, ALL ownership of anything, not just land, constitutes a monopoly.


Lie.  Land is a canonical example of monopoly:

"The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations



> With just a modicum of critical thought,


You will now spew an absurdity that no one who devoted a modicum of critical thought to it would believe. 


> you'd see clearly that the very essence of socialism entails state control of any means of production as a means of wealth capture and redistribution ("socialized wealth").


Nope.  That's just some stupid $#!+ you made up.  No matter how many stupid lies you tell, you cannot change the fact that socialism is collective (not _state_) OWNERSHIP of LAND AND CAPITAL.



> Taxation is just one _mechanism_ by which a given means of production can be controlled and its value, which can easily be distorted once controlled, can be captured.


Anti-economic garbage beneath comment.



> Unadulterated gibberish.


Fact.



> And you claim to have an advanced degree with honors in this $#@!?


I definitely do, and you definitely do not.



> A privately held philosophical view is just a philosophical view, and nothing more.  The same goes for any moral or even religious view that is privately held.  It MIGHT be considered a political view as well (e.g., to the extent that this influences an actual vote). A political view is ANYTHING (including views that are religious, moral or philosophical in origin) that is advocated as a normative to be followed and enforced state-wide as policy.


Sure.  But a political view is not political _philosophy_, which was the subject in question.



> ALL PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCACY IS POLITICAL.


The ol' switcheroo.  How utterly predictable.  The subject was political PHILOSOPHY, not political ADVOCACY.



> By definition, and regardless of the origin or rationale.


<yawn>  By definition, advocacy is not philosophy, regardless of how many lies you tell.



> ME: "All internal combustion engines require a fuel source."
> ROY: "But an internal combustion ENGINE is not a FUEL SOURCE, so you are objectively wrong."
> 
> You have no foundation in logic, Roy.


LOL!  You just made some stupid $#!+ up and pretended it was analogous to something I said.  That's not argument, Steven.  It is just you jerking off in public.



> Anyone who advocates public policies is a POLITICAL ADVOCATE.  Go mushy-fuzzy and slice-dice other terms at will as it pleases your sensibilities. Karl Marx and Henry George were both POLITICAL ADVOCATES, who advocated (PUSHED HARD) for the adoption of their economic theories, along with all the rationale and normative underpinnings that are foundational thereto, as public policy (POLITICAL).


Get a good dictionary, and look up "philosophy" and "advocacy."



> They are not advocating that animals should vote, but rather that PEOPLE in the electorate (legislators, voters, or anyone with political decision-making power) should vote in a certain way on public policy or law as it relates to experiments on animals.  The fact that they are advocating that PEOPLE vote a certain way is what makes it political, Roy.  Your reasoning that it's not political because they're not advocating that animals should vote is a typical, but extremely funny peek into the strange machinations of your mind, and how you shift POV's at will to suit your pretzeled leaps of logic.


No, it is just pointing out the difference between advocacy and philosophy, which you know perfectly well but are lying about.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> So how has it always been brilliantly successful if it can't be implemented? But wait, it can--and you can save DETROIT.


*To turn now to Harrisburg which was once considered one of the most distressed cities in the nation*. Harrisburg since 1982 has sustained an economic resurgence that has garnered national acclaim. It twice won the top United States community honor as All-American City, along with the top state recognition from the state Chamber of Business and Industry as Outstanding Community in Pennsylvania, all because of Harrisburg's development initiatives and progress.
Harrisburg taxes land values three times more than building values. This city's glossy promotional magazine points to its 2/3 lower property tax millage on improvements than on land as one reason why businesses should locate there.
Mayor Stephen Reed of Harrisburg sent the following letter to Patrick Toomey, businessman, civic activist, and member of the Home Rule Commission of Allentown (10/5/94):


"The City of Harrisburg continues in the view that a land value taxation system, which places a much higher tax rate on land than on improvements, is an important incentive for the highest and best use of land in already developed communities, such as cities.

In our central business district, for example, our two-tiered tax rate policy has specifically encouraged vertical development, meaning highrise construction, as opposed to lowrise or horizontal development that seems to permeate suburban communities and which utilizes much more land than is necessary.
With over 90% of the property owners in the City of Harrisburg, the two-tiered tax rate system actually saves money over what would otherwise be a single tax system that is currently in use in nearly all municipalities in Pennsylvania.
We therefore continue to regard the two-tiered tax rate system as an important ingredient in our overall economic development activities.
*I should note that the City of Harrisburg was considered the second most distressed in the United States* twelve years ago under the Federal distress criteria. Since then, over $1.2 billion in new investment has occurred here, reversing nearly three decades of very serious previous decline. None of this happened by accident and a variety of economic development initiatives and policies were created and utilized. The two-rate system has been and continues to be one of the key local policies that has been factored into this initial economic success here."
Here are a few of the improvements mentioned in the Harrisburg promotional literature:
The number of vacant structures, over 4200 in 1982, is today less than 500. With a resident population of 53,000, today there are 4,700 more city residents employed than in 1982. The crime rate has dropped 22.5% since 1981. The fire rate has dropped 51% since 1982.
These results are especially noteworthy when one considers the fact that 41% of the land and buildings of Harrisburg cannot be taxed by the city because it is owned by the state or non-profit bodies.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> That includes, once again, Karl Marx, "the economist", with his Labour Theory of Value, who was no less an _economic philosopher and ideologue_ than Henry George.


Wrong. George would not align with Socialist parties, as the movement was economic not political.  Marx was economic & political. 

Saying LVT is political is like saying Income Tax is political. Left, right, under and over all use Income Tax. LVT is apolitical.

----------


## Kluge

> *To turn now to Harrisburg which was once considered one of the most distressed cities in the nation*. Harrisburg since 1982 has sustained an economic resurgence that has garnered national acclaim. It twice won the top United States community honor as All-American City, along with the top state recognition from the state Chamber of Business and Industry as Outstanding Community in Pennsylvania, all because of Harrisburg's development initiatives and progress.
> Harrisburg taxes land values three times more than building values. This city's glossy promotional magazine points to its 2/3 lower property tax millage on improvements than on land as one reason why businesses should locate there.
> Mayor Stephen Reed of Harrisburg sent the following letter to Patrick Toomey, businessman, civic activist, and member of the Home Rule Commission of Allentown (10/5/94):
> 
> 
> "The City of Harrisburg continues in the view that a land value taxation system, which places a much higher tax rate on land than on improvements, is an important incentive for the highest and best use of land in already developed communities, such as cities.
> 
> In our central business district, for example, our two-tiered tax rate policy has specifically encouraged vertical development, meaning highrise construction, as opposed to lowrise or horizontal development that seems to permeate suburban communities and which utilizes much more land than is necessary.
> With over 90% of the property owners in the City of Harrisburg, the two-tiered tax rate system actually saves money over what would otherwise be a single tax system that is currently in use in nearly all municipalities in Pennsylvania.
> ...


I'm from PA, so perhaps I've been paying more attention than you:

http://www.goerie.com/article/201207...bankruptcy-ban




> *Pa. lawmakers OK longer Harrisburg bankruptcy ban*
> ERIE TIMES-NEWS  
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> HARRISBURG -- A bill designed to keep Pennsylvania's financially troubled capital out of federal bankruptcy court for five more months has the approval of the state Senate and House of Representatives.
> 
> The extension barring Harrisburg from filing for bankruptcy was approved Saturday. It goes to Gov. Tom Corbett, who is expected to approve it. The original ban helped stop an effort by Harrisburg's City Council to win bankruptcy protection in fall 2011.
> 
> The ban would expire Nov. 30.
> ...


On to Detroit!

----------


## Origanalist

> *To turn now to Harrisburg which was once considered one of the most distressed cities in the nation*. Harrisburg since 1982 has sustained an economic resurgence that has garnered national acclaim. It twice won the top United States community honor as All-American City, along with the top state recognition from the state Chamber of Business and Industry as Outstanding Community in Pennsylvania, all because of Harrisburg's development initiatives and progress.
> Harrisburg taxes land values three times more than building values. This city's glossy promotional magazine points to its 2/3 lower property tax millage on improvements than on land as one reason why businesses should locate there.
> Mayor Stephen Reed of Harrisburg sent the following letter to Patrick Toomey, businessman, civic activist, and member of the Home Rule Commission of Allentown (10/5/94):
> 
> 
> "The City of Harrisburg continues in the view that a land value taxation system, which places a much higher tax rate on land than on improvements, is an important incentive for the highest and best use of land in already developed communities, such as cities.
> 
> In our central business district, for example, our two-tiered tax rate policy has specifically encouraged vertical development, meaning highrise construction, as opposed to lowrise or horizontal development that seems to permeate suburban communities and which utilizes much more land than is necessary.
> With over 90% of the property owners in the City of Harrisburg, the two-tiered tax rate system actually saves money over what would otherwise be a single tax system that is currently in use in nearly all municipalities in Pennsylvania.
> ...


Source please.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Source please.


Google is your friend.  Lots there. LVT transformed a shambles of a Rust Belt city. Wherever LVT is implemented on a substantial scale there are great improvements all around.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I'm from PA, so perhaps I've been paying more attention than you:


Harrisburg overspent on I think a city incinerator - bad business moves.  This is irrelevant to transformation LVT did to the city.  If the city were able to apply LVT to the 41% they currently cannot, there would be no problems in local finances.  Also, they never fully implemented LVT - and its transformed the place.  Full implementation and taxing all the land would catapult the city forward.

Detroit needs a heavy dose of LVT. It will transform the place.  The vacant lots will disappear.

----------


## seraphson

> How does a government get its revenue to run its services?  Do you think it is cast down from the heavens?


I guess the question is how high in the sky do you have to go before calling it heaven?

----------


## Kluge

> Harrisburg overspent on I think a city incinerator - bad business moves.  This is irrelevant to transformation LVT did to the city.  If the city were able to apply LVT to the 41% they currently cannot, there would be no problems in local finances.  Also, they never fully implemented LVT - and its transformed the place.  Full implementation and taxing all the land would catapult the city forward.
> 
> Detroit needs a heavy dose of LVT. It will transform the place.  The vacant lots will disappear.


Overspending on one incinerator caused bankruptcy when this place was magically transformed by this LVT?

Oh, and now you're saying that they didn't implement it right. Funny you didn't mention that stuff before when you wrongfully believed that Harrisburg was a beautiful wonderland of LVT success.

**sad trombone**

You lose. But please, I want to see what you can do with Detroit. If you and other LVT folks can implement it and turn the city around, I'll take you and Roy seriously. Until then, all evidence points toward you knowing naught of which you speak.

----------


## Kluge

Harrisburg stats on vacant housing:


#	Zip Code	Location	City	Population	% Vacant Homes	National Rank
1.	17101	40.261061, -76.881985	Harrisburg, Pennsylvania	1,999	20.77 %	#5,858
2.	17102	40.272305, -76.889578	Harrisburg, Pennsylvania	8,004	17.10 %	#7,683
3.	17103	40.275426, -76.866368	Harrisburg, Pennsylvania	11,768	16.30 %	#8,209
4.	17104	40.256813, -76.858972	Harrisburg, Pennsylvania	20,277	12.04 %	#12,252
5.	17110	40.317100, -76.876022	Harrisburg, Pennsylvania	22,195	8.96 %	#17,000
6.	17113	40.231875, -76.825214	Harrisburg, Pennsylvania	11,223	7.00 %	#20,837
7.	17109	40.289717, -76.828220	Harrisburg, Pennsylvania	23,356	6.04 %	#22,868
8.	17111	40.270290, -76.781990	Harrisburg, Pennsylvania	27,111	4.58 %	#26,106
9.	17112	40.367549, -76.787788	Harrisburg, Pennsylvania	30,337	3.31 %	#28,891

Easier to read at the link: http://zipatlas.com/us/pa/harrisburg...sing-units.htm

The crime rates that I've found don't support you either:

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-stat...arrisburg.html
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/i...tatistics.html




> In 2008, Harrisburg was the most dangerous city in Pennsylvania with 72.7 violent crimes per 1,000 people. How did last year compare?
> There were 245 assaults in 2010, equal to the number in 2008. There were 60 rapes last year, the greatest number in five years.
> Sixteen people were killed, the second greatest number in five years. 
> Tell Harrisburgs taxi drivers that the latest statistics are good news. Within two days in early December, one cabbie was shot in the head and another was assaulted and robbed.


Just like any other city, there have been ups and downs in the crime rate, but Harrisburg is hardly a safe city, not even close.

But the specific stats from the early 80's are numbers that I'm going to assume you pulled out of your ass since they don't seem to be easily available on the 'net. So they can neither be claimed nor refuted.

----------


## Roy L

> Overspending on one incinerator caused bankruptcy when this place was magically transformed by this LVT?


True.  The incinerator in question cost a few hundred million, and was to be used to burn garbage from nearby towns as a source of income.  But when it had already been built, the EPA jerked the rug from under it, and now they can't use it.  But Harrisburg is still on the hook.  Its bankruptcy had nothing whatever to do with LVT.



> Oh, and now you're saying that they didn't implement it right. Funny you didn't mention that stuff before when you wrongfully believed that Harrisburg was a beautiful wonderland of LVT success.


Harrisburg definitely benefited a lot from LVT despite its very modest implementation -- merely shifting the property tax burden off improvements and onto land.



> You lose.


Do a little reading.  And thinking.



> But please, I want to see what you can do with Detroit. If you and other LVT folks can implement it and turn the city around, I'll take you and Roy seriously. Until then, all evidence points toward you knowing naught of which you speak.


I would love to turn Detroit around.  But implementing LVT takes some political resources on the ground, and I don't know of anyone in Detroit who even knows what LVT is.

----------


## erowe1

I could probably go along with the LVT being less bad than most other taxes. But I can't see how it makes sense as a positive good on a basic ethical level.

What constitutes this "government" that arrogates to itself the right to collect the taxes? What's to stop me from calling myself the government and demanding that people pay me their LVT in exchange for services I give them without their consent?

The descriptions of the LVT in this thread use the euphemism "community" as if the LVT gets paid to the society as a whole somehow. But that can't be. It has to get paid to some specific gang of theives who claim to exercise special powers over everyone else and who get treated like the de facto owners of all the land.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Harrisburg definitely benefited a lot from LVT despite its very modest implementation -- merely shifting the property tax burden off improvements and onto land.


LVT transformed Harrisburg well before the incinerator fiasco.  And that was missing 41% of land for LVT collection and only a modest implementation at that.  Full LVT collection will transform any town or city.  Urban blight disappears.

----------


## Kluge

> True.  The incinerator in question cost a few hundred million, and was to be used to burn garbage from nearby towns as a source of income.  But when it had already been built, the EPA jerked the rug from under it, and now they can't use it.  But Harrisburg is still on the hook.  Its bankruptcy had nothing whatever to do with LVT.
> 
> Harrisburg definitely benefited a lot from LVT despite its very modest implementation -- merely shifting the property tax burden off improvements and onto land.
> 
> Do a little reading.  And thinking.
> 
> I would love to turn Detroit around.  But implementing LVT takes some political resources on the ground, and I don't know of anyone in Detroit who even knows what LVT is.


Except that you haven't shown that implementing LVT improved Harrisburg at all, either short-term or long-term. All you have are stats that you haven't shown any evidence for, and just like you saying that LVT had nothing to do with this incinerator, it's easily just as true for me to say that (if it's true, which I don't think it is), that the decrease in crime also had nothing to do with LVT.

If I weren't reading and thinking, you would have simply been able to convince me without seemingly making things up about Harrisburg. If LVT is as amazing as you and EW. say it is, one mess-up would not cause it's collapse, as you admit it has.

----------


## Kluge

> LVT transformed Harrisburg well before the incinerator fiasco.  And that was missing 41% of land for LVT collection and only a modest implementation at that.  Full LVT collection will transform any town or city.  Urban blight disappears.


Why did you make up the stats about vacant housing in Harrisburg?

----------


## Roy L

> What constitutes this "government" that arrogates to itself the right to collect the taxes?


The people who elected it.



> What's to stop me from calling myself the government and demanding that people pay me their LVT in exchange for services I give them without their consent?


Nothing -- if you are a private landowner.



> The descriptions of the LVT in this thread use the euphemism "community" as if the LVT gets paid to the society as a whole somehow. But that can't be.


Yes, it can, if the society as a whole votes for the government that recovers the publicly created land rent for public purposes and benefit.



> It has to get paid to some specific gang of theives who claim to exercise special powers over everyone else and who get treated like the de facto owners of all the land.


No, that's just a spew of stupid, dishonest garbage from you.  Officials elected to serve the public interest are not thieves -- that's just a lie -- and they don't get treated as the de facto owners of all -- or any -- of the land because THEY DON'T GET TO KEEP THE RENT.  Unlike a private landowner, they are accountable to the public for how they spend the value the public created.  You know this.  Stop lying about it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Why don't you and Roy make an effort to start a community here in the US based on your alleged principles--stop arguing and show some results. I'm going to suggest Detroit.
> 
> Good luck.


I've suggested this to Roy, et al at least once or twice.  I was dismissed out of hand.

----------


## Kluge

> I've suggested this to Roy, et al at least once or twice.  I was dismissed out of hand.


If you read through the thread, they actually suggested that Harrisburg, PA was a good example of an LVT success story.

Too bad Harrisburg is recently bankrupt.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, it can, if the society as a whole votes for the government that recovers the publicly created land rent for public purposes and benefit.


The only way society as a whole can ever vote for its government is if they all are enfranchised and vote unanimously. Do you really think that can ever happen? If not, then whoever constitutes that government that was elected, not by society as a whole, but by some subset of society, is a gang of thieves, and its collection of an LVT is no different than the collection of "taxes" by the Mafia.

Is there some government out there that has more of a legitimate claim to take people's money from them without their consent than the Mafia has? If so, where does this legitimacy come from? If you're right that it comes from the subset of the population who elected them, then what makes that subset so special that they have the right to rule over their neighbors without their consent?

----------


## Roy L

> Why did you make up the stats about vacant housing in Harrisburg?


The stats were for vacant structures, not vacant housing, and I see no evidence that he made them up.  By contrast, YOUR source says that Winnebago, WI, has a population of 518, and 100% of the homes are vacant....

----------


## Roy L

> If you read through the thread, they actually suggested that Harrisburg, PA was a good example of an LVT success story.
> 
> Too bad Harrisburg is recently bankrupt.


The huge success of LVT probably made them think they could do no wrong, so they proceeded to screw up.  Politicians are like that, IME.

----------


## Kluge

> The stats were for vacant structures, not vacant housing, and I see no evidence that he made them up.  By contrast, YOUR source says that Winnebago, WI, has a population of 518, and 100% of the homes are vacant....


The stats being for vacant structures, rather than just vacant houses makes the numbers worse.

And the evidence that he made them up are right there in front of you. And what does Winnebago, WI have to do with this?

If you guys were legit, you wouldn't have to make things up.

----------


## Roy L

> Except that you haven't shown that implementing LVT improved Harrisburg at all, either short-term or long-term.


Yes, we have.  You just refused to know the facts identified.



> All you have are stats that you haven't shown any evidence for,


Here's another source that confirms the success of LVT in Harrisburg:

http://www.labourland.org/in_the_new...harrisburg.php



> and just like you saying that LVT had nothing to do with this incinerator, it's easily just as true for me to say that (if it's true, which I don't think it is), that the decrease in crime also had nothing to do with LVT.


Actually, I don't think LVT has a very strong influence on crime.  There are too many other variables involved, especially demographics.



> If I weren't reading and thinking, you would have simply been able to convince me without seemingly making things up about Harrisburg.


I didn't make anything up about Harrisburg.



> If LVT is as amazing as you and EW. say it is, one mess-up would not cause it's collapse, as you admit it has.


Nonsense.  Lots of things can mess a city up, no matter how good the rest of its policies might be.  You might as well say, "Nothing the New Orleans city government was doing was any good, because look what happened to New Orleans."  It's just anti-logical nonsense.

----------


## Roy L

> The stats being for vacant structures, rather than just vacant houses makes the numbers worse.


No, it doesn't.



> And the evidence that he made them up are right there in front of you.


Thank you for agreeing that you have no such evidence.



> And what does Winnebago, WI have to do with this?


It proves your source is nonsense.



> If you guys were legit, you wouldn't have to make things up.


We haven't made up anything.

----------


## Roy L

> The only way society as a whole can ever vote for its government is if they all are enfranchised and vote unanimously.


Supererogatory nonsense.



> Do you really think that can ever happen?


Do you really think you can pretend it's necessary?



> If not, then whoever constitutes that government that was elected, not by society as a whole, but by some subset of society, is a gang of thieves, and its collection of an LVT is no different than the collection of "taxes" by the Mafia.


No, that's just you spewing stupid garbage with no basis in fact.  People who join forces to protect themselves against thieves don't require the agreement of the thieves, sorry.



> Is there some government out there that has more of a legitimate claim to take people's money from them without their consent than the Mafia has?


I can only think of a few that don't.  But more to the point, you need to find a willingness to know the fact that unlike other taxes, LVT is not "taking people's money from them without their consent," but a *VOLUNTARY, market-based, value-for-value transaction*.  It is government that issues and secures the land title, and makes it valuable.  If you don't want to pay for that service, you don't get to keep the land any more than you get to walk out of a grocery store with a loaf of bread without paying for it.



> If so, where does this legitimacy come from?


Political legitimation theory is another thread.  But at the root, it comes from our inherent nature as human beings who must live in society to survive.



> If you're right that it comes from the subset of the population who elected them, then what makes that subset so special that they have the right to rule over their neighbors without their consent?


They voted.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Here's another source that confirms the success of LVT in Harrisburg:
> 
> http://www.labourland.org/in_the_new...harrisburg.php


From above...which is 2005...before the incinerator debacle, which is irrelevant to the limited LVT implemented.

The government should consider evidence from the United States. Many local authorities operate a so-called split-tax system, in which buildings and land are taxed separately. Some bias it towards buildings and others towards land.

*The evidence is that the more it is biased towards land, the more this benefits the local economy  as predicted by the theory of land value tax.*

This is precisely what happened in Harrisburg, the capital of Pennsylvania, after it more than doubled the tax rate on land to 5.5 per cent of capital value in the early 1980s, such that it was three times the rate of tax on buildings.

In 1982, Harrisburg, with a population of 52,000, was listed as the second most run-down city in the US after East St Louis. 

*Since then, empty sites and buildings have been re-developed  with the number of vacant sites cut by 85 per cent*  and the city authorities have issued 32,294 building permits, representing nearly $4 billion of new investment. In 2004 alone 1,865 were issued.

*The number of businesses has jumped from 1,908 to 8,864. And over 5,000 housing units have been newly constructed or rehabilitated. Meanwhile, unemployment has fallen by 19 per cent.*  
Furthermore, crime has declined by 58 per cent and the number of fires by 76 per cent, which the authorities say are due to more employment opportunities, and the *elimination of derelict sites*, making vandalism less likely. 

There is a list of 40 other positive benefits, such as improved public amenities.

In addition, the heightened economic activity has increased revenue, not only from land and buildings, but also from other taxes, thus benefiting public services.

The value of land and buildings has increased from $400 million in 1982 in todays prices to $1.6 billion now. 

This has enabled the authorities to reduce the rate of tax on land to 2.44 per cent, and that on buildings to 0.41 per cent. In other words, the bias towards land is now six to one compared with three to one previously, which will further enhance the trends that the city has already seen.

One constraint has been the fact that 47 per cent of the land in Harrisburg is occupied by state, federal, educational and charitable institutions, which, anomalously, are exempt from property taxes.

However, some of that lost revenue has been clawed back through charges on water, gas and electricity supplies, which are publicly owned  another lesson that we can perhaps learn from Harrisburg.

Meanwhile, another city in Pennsylvania, namely Pittsburgh, has gone in the opposite direction with its split-tax system. In 2000, it reduced the rate of tax on land to the same lower rate on buildings. Voters were persuaded that they would pay less tax.

In fact, for most, taxes increased, because the council had to raise the building tax rate to make up for the revenue lost through lowering the land tax. *Within just two years, new construction fell by 21 per cent, and businesses were starting to move out of town, as predicted by theory.*

Opponents or sceptics of land value taxation often assert that valuing land is problematic. In fact, buildings are more difficult to value because they are so diverse, whereas land value, at least in towns, depends essentially on location. 

Indeed, in the US where split-tax systems operate, typically some 95 per cent of staff in valuation offices is employed valuing buildings, and only 5 per cent valuing land. And invariably, there are many more appeals against the valuation of buildings than of land, with authorities winning more appeals on land than on buildings.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> If you guys were legit, you wouldn't have to make things up.


It is best you at least try to understand what the Geoists on these threads are putting across.  Geoists *DO NOT* lie as they have no need to.  The evidence of its success is all too apparent, from national governments to local towns, to compromises like Letchworth Garden City who circumvented the fact that there was no adequate laws to implement LVT on a local or national level.  But after over 100 years Letchworth remains true to its foundation..._The current arrangements have evolved from one of Letchworth Garden City's founding principles which, unlike any other British attempt at new town design, was that land should be held in common for the good of all._

Get this tripe out of your head that owning land and stealing the value in it created by the community is some sort of liberty.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> If you don't want to pay for that service, you don't get to keep the land any more than you get to walk out of a grocery store with a loaf of bread without paying for it.


The whole of the Earth is not a $#@!ing grocery store, nor is the state its monopolist proprietor. Meeza lubsa gubmint that makes sure that nasty, human-enslaving scenario never happens - meeza hatsea gubmint polluted by socialist/collectivist glassy-eyed believers.

----------


## Roy L

> The whole of the Earth is not a $#@!ing grocery store,


You just do not want to contribute value in return for the value you take, as one must in a grocery store.  You prefer to live as a parasite, taking from others' production without having to produce anything yourself, rather than as a producer or trader giving value in return for value.  Simple.



> nor is the state its monopolist proprietor.


In fact, it is.  Government administers possession and use of land.  That is one of its most fundamental and defining functions, ALWAYS, because that's what government IS: the sovereign authority over -- the "proprietor" of -- a specific area of land.



> Meeza lubsa gubmint that makes sure that nasty, human-enslaving scenario never happens - meeza hatsea gubmint polluted by socialist/collectivist glassy-eyed believers.


Were you under an erroneous impression that readers don't see the grotesque dishonesty in such claims?

----------


## Steven Douglas

> You prefer to live as a parasite, taking from others' production without having to produce anything yourself...


That's a collectivist parasite's reverse projection.  You can stuff your collectivized "communist infused value", all nice and soaked into the land in your imaginary game wherein ticks, leaches, and other worthless parasites take credit where absolutely none is due, while sitting back and looking for a return on investments that never were, from socialist ownership that never was, and all as an excuse to suck real productivity and life blood out of anyone who sits still long enough on a piece of good land. And all that in the name of reclaiming value to which ticks, leaches and other worthless parasites might have played absolutely no part, and have absolutely no rightful claim beyond your bull$#@! communistic "liberty deprivation". 

You're not interested in reconciling so-called liberty rights, or even rights to access to land. You say that the poverty is caused by rents paid to landlords, and lack of equal access to the best lands (except on condition of high purchase price), and yet your solution reconciles NONE OF THAT - despite your bull$#@! claim that it would indirectly accomplish just that.  

If you really wanted to free _real people_ from landlords and productivity siphoning through rent payments, and in a way that would really SECURE their liberty, you would seek to make real people, and not some $#@!ing collective, the only _real_ landowners. But no, that's not your solution at all.  You don't think PAYING RENT is evil. You LOVE THAT $#@! (cuz yousa lubs a collectivist state).  Your solution is to simply switch landlords, and expand that human-enslaving rent collection process to all.  

In your Land Socialist Utopia, you're willing to trade everyone's security for a phantom bull$#@! version of liberty-that-never-was, with claims that are nothing but collectivist rot, the putative value of which "natural liberty rights" you would collectivize and auction off to the highest bidders -- even if they aren't real people!  And screw your incidental Universal Individual Exemption bone that you want thrown to everyone, and your social engineer's notion of "redeemable for enough good enough land to live on".  Were you really under an erroneous impression that readers don't see the grotesque dishonesty in such claims?

----------


## Kluge

> No, it doesn't.
> 
> Thank you for agreeing that you have no such evidence.
> 
> It proves your source is nonsense.
> 
> We haven't made up anything.


EW's statement is that Harrisburg today has only 500 vacant homes, that is a blatant lie. EW's statement is that crime rates have dropped immensely, which is also a blatant lie. He also stated that fires are down, and I can find no stats on that.

And he claims it's all due to LVT. 

Lies.

But why?

----------


## Kluge

> It is best you at least try to understand what the Geoists on these threads are putting across.  Geoists *DO NOT* lie as they have no need to.  The evidence of its success is all too apparent, from national governments to local towns, to compromises like Letchworth Garden City who circumvented the fact that there was no adequate laws to implement LVT on a local or national level.  But after over 100 years Letchworth remains true to its foundation..._The current arrangements have evolved from one of Letchworth Garden City's founding principles which, unlike any other British attempt at new town design, was that land should be held in common for the good of all._
> 
> Get this tripe out of your head that owning land and stealing the value in it created by the community is some sort of liberty.


If you didn't lie, what do you call it? Bull$#@!?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> If you didn't lie, what do you call it? Bull$#@!?


*It is best you at least try to understand what the Geoists on these threads are putting across*. Geoists *DO NOT* lie as they have no need to. The evidence of its success is all too apparent, from national governments to local towns, to compromises like Letchworth Garden City.

Get this tripe out of your head that owning land and stealing the value in it created by the community is some sort of liberty.

You display political conditioning.  Let your mind run free.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> That's a collectivist parasite's reverse projection.  You can stuff your collectivized "communist infused value", 
> ....
> ....
> from socialist ownership that never was, 
> ....
> ....
> bull$#@! communistic "liberty deprivation". 
> ....
> In your Land Socialist Utopia, 
> ....


*This one is some sort of brainwashed nutball.*  He looks under his bed each night to see if any Reds are there.  What a saddo. He needs professional attention. 

Karl Marx and George disagreed, Marx said George's book, Progress and Poverty, the world's biggest seller at the time, apart from the Bible, was Capitalism's last ditch.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Karl Marx and George disagreed...


Yeah, so did Mao and Stalin. Bitterly. So did the Pope and Martin Luther. Ad nauseam, ad infinitum, yada yada two bits and up... 




> Get this tripe out of your head that owning land and stealing the value in it created by the community is some sort of liberty.


That has to be one of the very best thing about Geoists (or whichever of their five or six different names they can't agree on calling themselves): It is precisely that kind of bull$#@! reasoning, which I can see clearly that they honestly, fervently believe in, and are in earnest about as it is preached and shouted repeatedly as mantra, that makes all their battles pretty much self-defeating.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The whole of the Earth is not a $#@!ing grocery store, nor is the state its monopolist proprietor. Meeza lubsa gubmint that makes sure that nasty, human-enslaving scenario never happens - meeza hatsea gubmint polluted by socialist/collectivist glassy-eyed believers.


LVT, the more it is implemented, eliminates poverty. Look at Taiwan and others. 

You think a tax shift is Communism - laughable!!!    What political ism is Income Tax? Communism? Fascism? Democratic Socialism? Conservatism?  Can you think of any more Income Tax might be?    I dread to think what ism Sales Tax is, is your mind  

LVT clearly screws your immovable mind of pigeon holed stereotyped beliefs. Gaffney got it right..


_George's blend of radicalism and conservatism can 
puzzle one, until it is seen as a reconciliation of the two. 
The system is internally consistent, but defies conventional stereotypes."_
- Professor Mason Gaffney (US economist) 

Boy you are puzzled.

----------


## erowe1

> People who join forces to protect themselves against thieves don't require the agreement of the thieves, sorry.


I agree with that. But that's not what we see in any states that I know of. What we see are groups of people imposing their rule over other people without their consent, and without regard for whether or not they are theives.

What makes these groups of people so special that they get to claim to represent the whole society and collect LVT from other people who don't consent to their rule over them?

----------


## Kluge

> *It is best you at least try to understand what the Geoists on these threads are putting across*. Geoists *DO NOT* lie as they have no need to. The evidence of its success is all too apparent, from national governments to local towns, to compromises like Letchworth Garden City.
> 
> Get this tripe out of your head that owning land and stealing the value in it created by the community is some sort of liberty.
> 
> You display political conditioning.  Let your mind run free.


Why did you lie about those statistics on Harrisburg? That was allegedly your "evidence," but it turned out to be untrue and then you slowly started backtracking.

That is incredibly dishonest, as is saying goofy things like "geoists don't lie." Unless geoists are supernatural beings, they do lie. 

But hey, we can just let it drop: You think I'm a thief, and I know you're a liar.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Why did you lie about those statistics on Harrisburg?


Did not lie. Links were given.  One one backtracked at all.  You refused to see the meteoric rise of Harrisburg and developed selective amnesia and then attempted to discredit because of a bad business decision on an incinerator.  Even UK newspapers ere reporting of Harrisburg's amazing rise. 

One thing is clear the second ,most deprived city in the USA was transformed by using only a limited form of LVT.  Imagine if the other 41% of land was levied and a full implementation of LVT. Wow.  It would get like Taiwan's meteoric rise from a backward poverty ridden paddy field backwater to a world technological power.

You tell yourself lies and believe them.  Geoist have no need to lie as the evidence is all there verifyable.  Read my posts.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I agree with that. But that's not what we see in any states that I know of. What we see are groups of people imposing their rule over other people without their consent, and without regard for whether or not they are theives.
> 
> What makes these groups of people so special that they get to claim to represent the whole society and collect LVT from other people who don't consent to their rule over them?


You are very confused.

----------


## Roy L

> EW's statement is that Harrisburg today has only 500 vacant homes,


He said structures, not homes.



> that is a blatant lie.


It was sloppy.  I agree he should have given his source and the context, which was data from the 1970s-1990s, and not about residential occupancy over the whole city:

_"Harrisburg is also known world wide for its use of land value taxation. Harrisburg has taxed land at a rate six times that on improvements since 1975, and this policy has been credited by Reed, as well as by the city's former city manager during the 1980s with helping reducing the number of vacant structures in downtown Harrisburg from about 4,200 in 1982 to less than 500."_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_R._Reed



> EW's statement is that crime rates have dropped immensely, which is also a blatant lie.


No.  They did drop in the decades after the tax shift was introduced; but as I said, I doubt that had much to do with LVT. 



> And he claims it's all due to LVT.


Strawman.  But I agree EW should have given the source and context for what he posted, which he clearly did not write himself.

----------


## Roy L

> Yeah, so did Mao and Stalin. Bitterly.


No.  Stalin helped Mao, and their "disagreement" in later years was mainly over who was in charge, not principles or philosophy.  Mao followed a very Stalinist program of totalitarian dictatorship by the Communist Party Central Committee, collectivization, central planning, forced industrialization, purges, etc.



> So did the Pope and Martin Luther.


Yes, but their disagreements were and are obviously substantive, as Marx and George's are.

----------


## Roy L

> I agree with that. But that's not what we see in any states that I know of.


Most advanced democracies are actually quite a bit like that.  In any case, thank you for retracting your claim of a requirement for unanimity.



> What we see are groups of people imposing their rule over other people without their consent, and without regard for whether or not they are theives.


The problem is, there is a lot of confusion (greatly increased by the kind of bull$#!+ we have seen here from anti-LVT liars) about just who the thieves are and how they are robbing the productive.  There is self-evidently a lot of thieving going on, and when liars contrive to shift the blame off the perpetrators, they have to shift it onto the innocent, _including government officials who are mostly just trying to do their jobs_.



> What makes these groups of people so special that they get to claim to represent the whole society and collect LVT from other people who don't consent to their rule over them?


Democratic legitimation, and the objective requirement people have to live in a society with institutions strong enough to protect them from the predators in their midst.  But those institutions can't establish and run themselves.  Therefore, SOMEONE has to codify society's laws, and decide on and implement public policy for the common good.  The notion that everything should or can be left up to individual discretion is puerile, even sub-human.

----------


## erowe1

> Most advanced democracies are actually quite a bit like that.


Really? So the reason the regime in DC can take money from me and use it to buy bombs to drop on Muslim kids is because I, at some point, entered some agreement delegating to them the power to do that sort of thing and claim to be acting in my behalf? I wasn't aware that I had done that.




> In any case, thank you for retracting your claim of a requirement for unanimity.


I don't retract that. If you inferred that I did, you were mistaken.




> Democratic legitimation, and the objective requirement people have to live in a society with institutions strong enough to protect them from the predators in their midst.  But those institutions can't establish and run themselves.  Therefore, SOMEONE has to codify society's laws, and decide on and implement public policy for the common good.  The notion that everything should or can be left up to individual discretion is puerile, even sub-human.


I fail to see how this is an argument that one group of people has the legitimate right to claim that it represents society as a whole so as to be the sole legitimate collector of the LVT. The state itself is a predator in our midst. Where is the institution strong enough to protect us from it?

----------


## Kluge

> Did not lie. Links were given.  One one backtracked at all.  You refused to see the meteoric rise of Harrisburg and developed selective amnesia and then attempted to discredit because of a bad business decision on an incinerator.  Even UK newspapers ere reporting of Harrisburg's amazing rise. 
> 
> One thing is clear the second ,most deprived city in the USA was transformed by using only a limited form of LVT.  Imagine if the other 41% of land was levied and a full implementation of LVT. Wow.  It would get like Taiwan's meteoric rise from a backward poverty ridden paddy field backwater to a world technological power.
> 
> You tell yourself lies and believe them.  Geoist have no need to lie as the evidence is all there verifyable.  Read my posts.





> He said structures, not homes.
> 
> It was sloppy.  I agree he should have given his source and the context, which was data from the 1970s-1990s, and not about residential occupancy over the whole city:
> 
> _"Harrisburg is also known world wide for its use of land value taxation. Harrisburg has taxed land at a rate six times that on improvements since 1975, and this policy has been credited by Reed, as well as by the city's former city manager during the 1980s with helping reducing the number of vacant structures in downtown Harrisburg from about 4,200 in 1982 to less than 500."_
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_R._Reed
> 
> No.  They did drop in the decades after the tax shift was introduced; but as I said, I doubt that had much to do with LVT. 
> ...


Since neither one of you can be honest, so you're both on ignore.

Enjoy talking to the wall, and the occasional curious person who realizes that you guys are more like cultists than people with a firm, reasonable economic theory that could possibly work. Neither one of you are good spokespeople for LVT if there are some good aspects to it.

----------


## Roy L

> Really? So the reason the regime in DC can take money from me and use it to buy bombs to drop on Muslim kids is because I, at some point, entered some agreement delegating to them the power to do that sort of thing and claim to be acting in my behalf?


No, I said *most* advanced democracies.  The USA is clearly well along on the road to fascism.  Obama's appointment of Summers, Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner to the key economic posts in his administration put the seal on that.



> I wasn't aware that I had done that.


But you claim you *ARE* aware that you *did* agree to give up your right to liberty so that landowners could pocket the fruits of your labor in return for nothing?  When did you do that?



> I don't retract that. If you inferred that I did, you were mistaken.


So now you claim that people who join forces to protect themselves against thieves *DO* require the thieves' agreement?



> I fail to see how this is an argument that one group of people has the legitimate right to claim that it represents society as a whole so as to be the sole legitimate collector of the LVT.


You "fail" to see it because you have decided not to see it.

That group has the legitimate right to claim it represents society as a whole because unlike the private landholder that group *answers to* society as a whole, including the people who are paying the LVT; and because that group's *FUNCTION* is to secure and reconcile the equal human rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor; and that group is the sole legitimate collector of the LVT because it is the principal *CREATOR* of the benefits the LVT is collected in voluntary payment for.



> The state itself is a predator in our midst.


No, that is just puerile "meeza hatesa gubmint" garbage.  People who believe such stupid, puerile, dishonest garbage deserve the government they get, and you are getting it.



> Where is the institution strong enough to protect us from it?


Democracy under a constitution based on the facts of objective reality.  But the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and puerile "meeza hatesa gubmint" garbage is just a clever way of diverting your attention from the rigors of your task of vigilance.

----------


## Roy L

> Since neither one of you can be honest, so you're both on ignore.


ROTFL!!  SD tells hundreds of blatant lies and he's your hero, but EW posts one (1) careless out-of-context excerpt that was perfectly true when it was written and suddenly we're both too dishonest to read?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...

----------


## erowe1

> No, I said *most* advanced democracies.  The USA is clearly well along on the road to fascism.  Obama's appointment of Summers, Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner to the key economic posts in his administration put the seal on that.


So in most other advanced democracies the state derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed? So then I guess they don't have things like minimum wage laws where they forcibly prevent their subjects from being able to enter agreements with one another that they would choose to enter if it were up to them?




> But you claim you *ARE* aware that you *did* agree to give up your right to liberty so that landowners could pocket the fruits of your labor in return for nothing?  When did you do that?


I do not claim that.




> So now you claim that people who join forces to protect themselves against thieves *DO* require the thieves' agreement?


No. But they do require the unanimous agreement of one another. They don't have a right to go to people who did not choose to join forces with them and demand that they pay their dues to this subgroup of society that claims to answer to society as a whole, to secure and reconcile the equal human rights of all to life, liberty and property, and to be the principal creator of the benefits ostensibly paid for by the dues they collect.




> That group has the legitimate right to claim it represents society as a whole because unlike the private landholder that group *answers to* society as a whole,


There you go again. How does this group answer to society as a whole? Does it answer to each and every individual, or just some subset of them? Or does it just answer to them in some general sense where it suffers consequences that result from public opinion about what it does, in which manner every tyrant in history has answered to his subjects, as Machiavelli well illustrated, and in which manner private land owners do, as a matter of fact, answer to society as a whole.




> including the people who are paying the LVT; and because that group's *FUNCTION* is to secure and reconcile the equal human rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor; and that group is the sole legitimate collector of the LVT because it is the principal *CREATOR* of the benefits the LVT is collected in voluntary payment for.


Does this group merely need to claim these things about itself in order to be entitled to other peoples' money, or does it need to have some kind of explicit contract with the people it claims to be in this relationship with?

----------


## Roy L

> That's a collectivist parasite's reverse projection.


Nope.  That's just a stupid lie.  It is indisputably the landowner who is a parasite, as proved by your inability to answer 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?"

No one is a parasite under the proposed land rent recovery system, because no one gets any value except in return for contributing commensurate value.  You are just flat-out LYING.



> You can stuff your collectivized "communist infused value", all nice and soaked into the land in your imaginary game wherein ticks, leaches, and other worthless parasites take credit where absolutely none is due,


Lie.  Consenting not to exercise one's natural right to liberty wrt a given area of land in order to secure an exclusive user's property right in the fruits of his labor adds value to that land, earning commensurate value in return.

You always have to lie.  ALWAYS.



> while sitting back and looking for a return on investments that never were,


Lie.  See above.  Agreeing to hold one's liberty in abeyance in order to enable greater production is an investment of one's care and forebearance.



> from socialist ownership that never was,


Strawman lie.  Land cannot rightly be owned, but its possession and use can only rightly be administered by an institution whose function is to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all to use it.



> and all as an excuse to suck real productivity and life blood out of anyone who sits still long enough on a piece of good land.


ROTFL!!  The "real productivity" of someone who "sits still long enough"??

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

You have just explicitly admitted that you are concerned exclusively with rationalizing society's servitude to the greed of idle, privileged parasites.



> And all that in the name of reclaiming value to which ticks, leaches and other worthless parasites might have played absolutely no part, and have absolutely no rightful claim beyond your bull$#@! communistic "liberty deprivation".


The deprivation of liberty inherent in landowning is a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality, and you know it.  Every competent rights theorist has acknowledged that fact and tried to find ways to deal with it.  Only the geoists have succeeded.



> You're not interested in reconciling so-called liberty rights,


You do not believe in liberty rights at all, that's obvious.



> or even rights to access to land.


Already proved a lie many times.



> You say that the poverty is caused by rents paid to landlords, and lack of equal access to the best lands (except on condition of high purchase price), and yet your solution reconciles NONE OF THAT - despite your bull$#@! claim that it would indirectly accomplish just that.


Another blatant lie.  The universal individual exemption indisputably provides *EVERY* resident citizen with *FREE, SECURE, EXCLUSIVE* access to enough good land to live on -- including, if he wants to use a commensurately smaller portion of it, the *best* land.



> If you really wanted to free _real people_ from landlords and productivity siphoning through rent payments, and in a way that would really SECURE their liberty, you would seek to make real people, and not some $#@!ing collective, the only _real_ landowners.


That is a lie already proved false by all of history.  *Everywhere* that land has been privately owned and government has not intervened massively to rescue the landless from the immutable effects of the Law of Rent, their condition has been (or in the case of newly opened frontiers has rapidly approached) that of literal slaves.



> But no, that's not your solution at all.  You don't think PAYING RENT is evil.


That is correct.  Paying rent for land is a voluntary, market-based, value-for-value transaction that aids efficient resource allocation, like paying wages for labor.  But just as wages are only rightly paid to the laborer who is applying the skills and effort that give value to his labor, so land rent is only rightly paid to the community of those who are providing the services, infrastructure, opportunities and amenities that, by increasing the land user's economic advantage, give value to the land.

You just have to refuse to know that fact.



> You LOVE THAT $#@! (cuz yousa lubs a collectivist state).


No, because unlike lying economic ignorami, I understand why paying commensurate value for value received is necessary and beneficial.



> Your solution is to simply switch landlords, and expand that human-enslaving rent collection process to all.


You are lying.  Collection of land rent is only human-enslaving when the rent is paid to an idle landowner who does not contribute the value he is collecting rent for, just as collection of wages is only human-enslaving when the wages of labor are paid to an idle slaveowner who does not contribute the value he is collecting wages for.  And just as the solution to enslavement by slave owners is to "switch" wage collectors to the worker who is contributing the value, so the solution to enslavement by landowners is to "switch" landlords to the community that is contributing the value.



> In your Land Socialist


That is an oxymoron.  Emphasis on the "moron."



> Utopia, you're willing to trade everyone's security


??  ROTFL!!  That would presumably be the "security" of the landless in their lives of toil, privation and despair on the treadmill that powers the landowners' escalator?  Oh, yeah, I'm very willing to trade that "security."



> for a phantom bull$#@! version of liberty-that-never-was,


It indisputably was, stop lying.  Our remote ancestors enjoyed *exactly* that liberty before land thieves forcibly removed it.



> with claims that are nothing but collectivist rot,


There is nothing collectivist about the individual right to liberty, stop lying.  You just use "collectivist" as a general-purpose pejorative, with no actual meaning.



> the putative value of which "natural liberty rights" you would collectivize and auction off to the highest bidders -- even if they aren't real people!


Deceitful garbage.  It's better to get the proceeds of an auction of rights in compensation than to be forcibly robbed of your rights without any compensation at all, as you propose.



> And screw your incidental Universal Individual Exemption bone that you want thrown to everyone, and your social engineer's notion of "redeemable for enough good enough land to live on".  Were you really under an erroneous impression that readers don't see the grotesque dishonesty in such claims?


Facts, logic, arguments = 0.  What a surprise.

----------


## Roy L

> So in most other advanced democracies the state derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed?


Pretty much.  But you were talking about government spending money on bombs to drop on Muslim kids, not all powers of government, so that's a bit of a bait-and-switch.



> So then I guess they don't have things like minimum wage laws where they forcibly prevent their subjects from being able to enter agreements with one another that they would choose to enter if it were up to them?


You guess wrong.  Just because an agreement is not all one way doesn't mean it isn't agreeable to the parties concerned.  As in any contract, the parties agree to things they'd rather not agree to in exchange for getting the things they want.  Just as you don't really want to pay a lawyer $300/hr, but you do it in exchange for getting what you need from him, people put up with laws that are inconvenient to their interests because adults know they have to make compromises, and can't have everything their own way.



> I do not claim that.


So how and why, exactly, *did* you give up your right to liberty?



> No. But they do require the unanimous agreement of one another.


Nope.  Not when they are adults who understand that participating in an organized effort requires recognition that decisions won't be unanimous.  No functional large group of people in the history of the world has ever required unanimity in its decision making, for reasons that are obvious to everyone over the age of nine.



> They don't have a right to go to people who did not choose to join forces with them and demand that they pay their dues to this subgroup of society that claims to answer to society as a whole, to secure and reconcile the equal human rights of all to life, liberty and property, and to be the principal creator of the benefits ostensibly paid for by the dues they collect.


Yes, they do, when the people who chose not to join forces with them are violating their rights.  They have every right to require just compensation for such violations, and if it is not made, to assert their rights by collective force, as against any other thief.



> There you go again.


Identifying facts.  Tiresome of me, I know.



> How does this group answer to society as a whole?


Through democratic institutions for securing responsibility from the people those same institutions invest with authority.



> Does it answer to each and every individual, or just some subset of them?


The competent adults.



> Or does it just answer to them in some general sense where it suffers consequences that result from public opinion about what it does, in which manner every tyrant in history has answered to his subjects, as Machiavelli well illustrated, and in which manner private land owners do, as a matter of fact, answer to society as a whole.


No, that's not democratic legitimacy or how democratic constitutional institutions operate.



> Does this group merely need to claim these things about itself in order to be entitled to other peoples' money,


Deceitful garbage.  The group is invested with authority to use public revenue for public purposes and benefit, not its own purposes and benefit.  You know this.  Why lie about it?



> or does it need to have some kind of explicit contract with the people it claims to be in this relationship with?


It needs no explicit contract, just the nature of the relationship haiving been accepted by both parties by customary habit over time, like a common-law marriage.

----------


## erowe1

> It needs no explicit contract, just the nature of the relationship haiving been accepted by both parties by customary habit over time, like a common-law marriage.


I don't have a problem with that, but that just gets us back to the need for the consent of the governed. That still doesn't allow for there to exist some subgroup of the world's (or some community's or whatever) population that has any right to make the rest of the population pay them LVT without their acceptance of that relationship.

You seem to have this idealized conception of the state that it owes its existence to all of the people agreeing among each other to vest authority in the state for their mutual benefit. But there are no states like that. Every state was created by some group of bandits that used violence to subjugate another group of people against their will, and every state continues to exist by ruling over people by violent force without their consent. You might be right in what you said earlier that these people are so subjugated because of a lack of vigilance on their part to ensure their own liberty, but even if that's the case it still doesn't grant legitimacy to the regime that rules over them.

If there ever were a true republic that owed its existence to the agreement of all of its participants, then I could see how land value taxes would be reasonable ways for them to be funded. But with the states that actually exist, I fail to see how their extraction of LVT from subjects who do not consent to their rule can possibly be anything but theft or why providing these enemies of society with more funds can in any way be a proxy for providing something to society itself.

----------


## Steven Douglas

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


That's a loaded fool's question, rife with circular reasoning, and laden with bull$#@! assumptions and presumptions, that requires no answer, but does warrant a challenge of the very premises of the question.  

I don't give a $#@! how production is "aided" in your mind by anything, Roy, because the be-all-end-all of life is not production, nor is it what you loosely term "producer".  With your whacked out reasoning, everyone who happens to exist within a nebulous blob you call "community" is a "producer", from which landowners are all "demanding" something.  And demanding from whom? Once again, that Holy Geoist Collectivist Trinity of "Government-Nature-Community" -- the Geoist Apostle's Creed that force-melds them together as One Provider, Indivisible Uber Alles, mit liberty und justice fuhrer all, in your mind, on whose collectivized behalf you presume to speak. That is the epitome of arrogant, presumptuous bull$#@!. 




> No one is a parasite under the proposed land rent recovery system, because no one gets any value except in return for contributing commensurate value.


On the contrary, everyone that suckles closest to the teats of state under that system is a land parasite, sucking life blood and real value from the real producers.  And once again, your paradigm begins with the circular presumption that the _collectivist state_ is the ultimate owner of all land (which is "unownable" even by the state, based on the semantics of your Geoist Creed), and even though it contributed no more value to *raw unimproved land* than anyone else.  

That's how you can, with a straight face even, see the state as the owner of a land grocery store called EARTH, and how you can refer to landowners who don't pay a rent tax thieves...of a $#@!ing hive collective, no less. But even a grocery store is a moronic analogue, because they don't RENT anything, excepting perhaps Rug Doctor machines. Whatever you BUY from a grocery store is YOURS to dispose of as you please, in perpetuity, with nothing owing afterward.  The statist owners of the LAND RENTAL STORE aren't selling anything but other people's rights, then giving out fake titles of ownership that aren't really ownership titles at all, as they are all tantamount to rental agreements for something that can be rented out but never truly owned by any individual, given that perpetual rental payments are required.  




> Consenting not to exercise one's natural right to liberty wrt a given area of land in order to secure an exclusive user's property right in the fruits of his labor adds value to that land, earning commensurate value in return.


So my liberty right is "held in abeyance", the state receives the value it was sold for in return, and somehow that means that I am "earning" commensurate value in return. That's only accurate IF I AM THE $#@!ING STATE.  Now we get to the part where you throw everyone a UIE redemption coupon and call it a good day. Auction someone's else's natural liberty rights and conflate compensation to the state as being the same as compensation to individuals who rights were collectivized, parceled out, and auctioned off to A FEW - namely, the highest bidders.




> Agreeing to hold one's liberty in abeyance in order to enable greater production is an investment of one's care and forebearance.


So production trumps liberty. Arbeit Macht Frei? Work makes free?  $#@! your Production-Trumps-Liberty Slave State. 




> Strawman lie.  Land cannot rightly be owned...


Normative bull$#@!.  Land can be owned. Whether it can "rightly be owned" (in the strictly moral sense you are using) is another question, and precisely what is being debated herein. You want the immorality of landownership established up front, so that you can argue from that premise without it being a normative.  Impossible. 




> The deprivation of liberty inherent in landowning is a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality, and you know it.  Every competent rights theorist has acknowledged that fact and tried to find ways to deal with it.  Only the geoists have succeeded.


The deprivation of someone else's "liberty" TO THAT LAND, which is inherent in private landowning OF THAT LAND is only a problem when there are no alternatives - no other land available.  That's where real people get caught between the PRIVATE ROCK of speculation and the STATE'S HARD PLACE of land preservation and land usage zoning, with an unholy $#@!ing partnership between public and private collectivist interests that results in ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY OF SUPPLY, and the equally artificial and completely distorted skyrocketing values that result.  

Combine that with the fact that EVERY MARKET PARTICIPANT, under the present system AND YOURS, is presumed equal, as having equal rights.  So foreigners, corporations, fictitious persons, collectives both public and private, and anyone else acting as a matter of privilege and not as an individual with truly inalienable rights, ALL COMPETE. 

You see a land rent tax as discouraging monopolistic speculation and ownership of idle, undeveloped lands that are withheld from the market.  But your response is not to make that behavior a crime, which could end the problem of liberty access to those with actual rights.  And you DON'T even acknowledge that the state is THE WORST OFFENDER when it comes to WITHHOLDING LAND FROM THE MARKET, and creating artificial scarcity by other means, as is the case with zoning laws. Furthermore, THE STATE IS ALWAYS IMMUNE FROM TAXATION.  You don't think it OUGHT to be, but what you think OUGHT to be doesn't mean $#@!, as history and reality tell another story.  




> You do not believe in liberty rights at all, that's obvious.


Not as you see "liberty rights", that's for damned sure.  I don't believe that being "otherwise at liberty" to use lands that are already exclusively held as a de facto right.  That land is taken. Move the $#@! on. If there's no other land available, ask whether the scarcity is natural or artificial in origin. If artificial monopolistic control is being exercised, identify who, (public or private, singular or collective), is exercising that control, withholding good land and making it artificially scarce, and CHOP THEIR $#@!ING HEADS OFF. 

Don't use Eminent Domain laws to force Granny to sell TO A $#@!ING DEVELOPER at a low price so that we can make way for a shopping mall.  That's exactly backwards, using a very "ROYESQUE" emphasis on productivity, and only as it suits the interests of "the community", as loosely and poop-stupidly collectivized and ill-defined. 

Those same eminent domain laws could be used to simply recognize, acknowledge and identify land that is being speculated on, and its value seriously distorted by major players, including those who act as a matter of privilege and not right.  Want to discourage speculation such that a "tax" on land actually benefits REAL PEOPLE CONCERNED?  Do the opposite.  Force the land speculators to sell at a price commensurate with pre-speculation market value.  Let them take a bath.  Just the possibility that it could happen - ROUTINELY - will discourage speculation. 

I don't give a $#@! about your opinion about how the massive public parks in Hong Kong (all land withheld from the market) are so difficult for THE $#@!ING STATE to develop.  There are people living in coffin cages as homes who I'm sure would love to stake out a parcel they can call their own and pitch a tent there.  But they can't.  it's not because the land is so expensive to develop - it's because IT IS ILLEGAL. 




> The universal individual exemption indisputably provides *EVERY* resident citizen with *FREE, SECURE, EXCLUSIVE* access to enough good land to live on -- including, if he wants to use a commensurately smaller portion of it, the *best* land.


Your UIE pipe dream INDISPUTABLY does not exist except as a proposal in your mind, for something that is part of your version of Geoism as you see it, but quite apart from LVT, which is nothing more than an ad valorem tax on the unimproved rental value of land -- a revenue stream without regard to exemptions, dividends, or expenditures.  




> Collection of land rent is only human-enslaving when the rent is paid to an idle landowner who does not contribute the value he is collecting rent for...


MANDATORY PAYMENT of land rent is human-enslaving, not because the state, acting as an idle landowner, MIGHT contribute value back (and then again, might $#@!ing not). What makes MANDATORY PAYMENT of land rent human-enslaving is the fact that it never goes away. There is no path to freedom FROM THOSE PAYMENTS.  And the notion of "then take $#@!tier, cheaper land", or "exercise Roy's Phantom UIE value exemption", or "produce more so that you can afford to $#@! everyone else off the better lands" are not solutions.   

I AM SPARTUCUS.  You're trying to tell the slaves in your artificial $#@!ing LVT arena how alive and free they can be if they are but more competitive productive -- as benefits the state, which is SOMEHOW "the people" in some very demented minds.

*Productivity-for-the-state Makes Free* can kiss my ass.  
Free makes free. 
Sovereignty makes free. 
Freedom of sole despotic ownership over one's own Life, Liberty, Land, Labor and Capital makes free.

Perpetual Value Capture on behalf of a nebulous collective is HUMAN ENSLAVEMENT.  SOCIALIST IN ITS INCEPTION.

----------


## Roy L

> I don't have a problem with that, but that just gets us back to the need for the consent of the governed.


They consent by not leaving.



> That still doesn't allow for there to exist some subgroup of the world's (or some community's or whatever) population that has any right to make the rest of the population pay them LVT without their acceptance of that relationship.


You're still stuck in anarcho-ninny land, claiming that tax revenue is paid to government officials.  It's not.  They just _administer_ its expenditure for public purposes and benefit according to the established system of accountability.  It is the *landowner* who makes the rest of the population pay *HIM*, not the government official.  The government official doesn't get to keep the rent for himself any more than a manager in a corporation gets toi keep the company's sales revenue for himself.  Both are held accountable for the money through an institutional arrangement.



> You seem to have this idealized conception of the state that it owes its existence to all of the people agreeing among each other to vest authority in the state for their mutual benefit.


That is exactly right.  "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."  But we have already established that unanimity is not required, so not all the people have to agree.



> But there are no states like that.


Modern states are almost all like that to greater or lesser degrees.  People consent to be governed by some subset of the population chosen in some acceptable manner because they don't see a better alternative, including no government.



> Every state was created by some group of bandits that used violence to subjugate another group of people against their will,


No, that's just a pure fabrication on your part.  Look at the history of modern democracies like Switzerland, Denmark, etc.  They just bear no resemblance to your claim.

By contrast, an examination of the origins of land titles DOES show that they are based on violent subjugation of previous inhabitants of the land.



> and every state continues to exist by ruling over people by violent force without their consent.


Nope.  They consent because they see no better alternative.



> You might be right in what you said earlier that these people are so subjugated because of a lack of vigilance on their part to ensure their own liberty, but even if that's the case it still doesn't grant legitimacy to the regime that rules over them.


Yes, actually, it does.



> If there ever were a true republic that owed its existence to the agreement of all of its participants, then I could see how land value taxes would be reasonable ways for them to be funded. But with the states that actually exist, I fail to see how their extraction of LVT from subjects who do not consent to their rule


They do consent, by not leaving.



> can possibly be anything but theft


The only theft in question is the landowner's theft of the land from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.



> or why providing these enemies of society


Ludicrous nonsense.  Which society looks like it has been ravaged by enemies, Switzerland or Somalia?



> with more funds can in any way be a proxy for providing something to society itself.


Open yer freakin' eyes and look at the roads you use, the water and sewer systems, air transport infrastructure, fire and police services, etc., etc.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> You're still stuck in anarcho-ninny land, claiming that tax revenue is paid to government officials.  It's not.  They just _administer_ its expenditure for public purposes and benefit according to the established system of accountability.  It is the *landowner* who makes the rest of the population pay *HIM*, not the government official.  The government official doesn't get to keep the rent for himself any more than a manager in a corporation gets toi keep the company's sales revenue for himself.  Both are held accountable for the money through an institutional arrangement.


Ooh, is that how it works? ::: all googly-eyed as if you said something enlightening or profound :::

What an utterly dishonest strawman. Did you honestly think that ANYONE was claiming, implying, or otherwise believed that government officials were actually collecting and pocketing tax revenue for themselves? Nobody is that daft, Roy. Nobody is that stupid -- not even in LVT Stupidville.    

Also, did you think that invoking a manager and a corporation as an example would lend an air of legitimacy?  Let's put those words more to the point of what was being alluded to, and where that bear really $#@!s:

The government official doesn't get to keep the rent for himself *any more than a mafia goon gets to keep the extortion money he collects on behalf of a mafia don*.  Both are held accountable for the money through an "institutional arrangement". 

There, I corrected it for you.  Meanwhile, the mafia don, like certain theft-based governments and some drug cartel leaders, are sure to _administer_ some of their ill-gotten gain through expenditures for public purposes and benefit *according to the established system of accountability* (derived by them), because many of them have learned over time that it really helps if you have a bulk of the population both dependent upon you and "on your side" - with loyalty that you can cash in on.  You can leave the people poor, but if you enhance their survival in any way, you're in like Flynn, and may have their loyalty. 

For you, payola to the community for your criminal regime would amount to an LVT exemption, but that's only because you advocate a more stingy statist criminal regime than many others, where the UIE PAYOLA in exchange for agreeing and looking the other way as land rights are violated is somewhat modest. Some of your fellow LVT land-drug lords advocate actual dividends for socialized wealth redistribution.  For an example of how other criminal regimes do this, consider the case of one Christopher Coke, a Jamaican drug lord: 




To the people of Tivoli Gardens, Christopher Coke is the "president" - but he is also considered one of the most dangerous narcotics kingpins in the world by the US justice department. Ruling the gang where his father left off, he became a leader in the community of Tivoli Gardens, *distributing money to the area's poor, creating employment and setting up community centers*. Coke enjoys deep-rooted respect and loyalty from residents of Kingston and beyond - that is why the government's operation to arrest him has split the nation in two. He has been compared to Pablo Escobar because of the huge sums of money he pours into the area and his tight reign known as "one order".

If you're going to be a statist criminal, Roy, you might want to up the payola. Get with the times. At least the Democrats were clever enough to garner loyalty from promises to everyone for things like free health care, along with dis, dat, and da udder ting already set up.

----------


## erowe1

> They consent by not leaving.


1. Not leaving does not equal consent.
2. Leaving doesn't free people from continuing to be conquered by the regime that subjugates them.




> You're still stuck in anarcho-ninny land,


Where did you get that idea? I never said anything about anarchy.




> Open yer freakin' eyes and look at the roads you use, the water and sewer systems, air transport infrastructure, fire and police services, etc., etc.


Sure, there are all those things. Are they supposed to be proof that the institution providing them can't be tyrannical? Throughout history tyrants have generally funded those sorts of things. But then there are also plenty of other things (or even just the particular ways money is spent even on those things) that the regime spends money on for the particular advantage of things like banks, unions, the military industrial complex. The great majority of what the regimes that subjugate us spend our money on aren't things that anyone could call "public goods" with a straight face. And many of the ones that are public goods could be better provided by free market alternatives. Those that couldn't be could be provided by groups of people voluntarily agreeing among each other to establish republics.

----------


## Roy L

> Ooh, is that how it works?


Yes.  And I'll thank you to remember it.



> What an utterly dishonest strawman.


?????  Un.  Frickin'.  Believable.  It is anarcho-ninnies -- like you -- who constantly howl and shriek and scream about how "one group takes money from another group," and "bureaucrats take our money," and "why should they get money other people have earned," blah, blah, tedious blah.  THAT is what an utterly dishonest strawman looks like.

GOT IT?



> Did you honestly think that ANYONE was claiming, implying, or otherwise believed that government officials were actually collecting and pocketing tax revenue for themselves?


They are absolutely implying it.  If they aren't, why do they say it over and over and over and over again?



> Nobody is that daft, Roy. Nobody is that stupid -- not even in LVT Stupidville.


That is correct, Steven: no one is that daft or that stupid or that ignorant.

But they *ARE* that *dishonest*.   



> Also, did you think that invoking a manager and a corporation as an example would lend an air of legitimacy?


It is a simple and indisputable fact: both the corporate manager and the government official are merely employees paid AND AUTHORIZED to spend an organization's money *in that organization's interests, not their own,* according to established rules that give them (ideally commensurate) *responsibility* along with that *authority*.



> Let's put those words more to the point of what was being alluded to, and where that bear really $#@!s:
> 
> The government official doesn't get to keep the rent for himself *any more than a mafia goon gets to keep the extortion money he collects on behalf of a mafia don*.  Both are held accountable for the money through an "institutional arrangement".


???  HUH???  ARE YOU SERIOUS???

Talk about really $#@!ting, that has to take the gold-plated bullpat for dishonesty.  It is the mafia *don* who keeps the money for himself, not the *goon*.  But unlike government, there is no one at any level of the mafia who is responsible for spending money in the interests of the people who pay it, and unlike the mafia, there is no one at any level of government who just gets to keep government tax revenue for himself.  

You know this. 

Geez.



> There, I corrected it for you.


No, you turned relevant fact into stupid, dishonest $#@!, as proved above.



> Meanwhile, the mafia don, like certain theft-based governments and some drug cartel leaders, are sure to _administer_ some of their ill-gotten gain through expenditures for public purposes and benefit *according to the established system of accountability* (derived by them),


Flat-out lie.



> because many of them have learned over time that it really helps if you have a bulk of the population both dependent upon you and "on your side" - with loyalty that you can cash in on.  You can leave the people poor, but if you enhance their survival in any way, you're in like Flynn, and may have their loyalty.


It's true that some governments are predatory, dishonest, weak, and/or incompetent to the point that some people turn to criminals as rival governments.  So what?  Who here has claimed that all governments work well or are democratic?  There are more ways to have a bad government than a good one, just as there are more ways to have a bad diet than a good one.  But no matter how bad the diets some people actually eat, that is never an argument to stop eating.



> For you, payola to the community for your criminal regime


Flat-out lie.  You are heaping disgrace upon yourself.



> would amount to an LVT exemption, but that's only because you advocate a more stingy statist criminal regime than many others, where the UIE PAYOLA in exchange for agreeing and looking the other way as land rights are violated is somewhat modest.


That is just more stupid garbage you made up.



> Some of your fellow LVT land-drug lords advocate actual dividends for socialized wealth redistribution.


Lie.  The redistribution of wealth was from producers to landowners, and has already been effected.  LVT just recovers what the landowners have been stealing and returns it to those who were robbed, in just compensation for the forcible removal of their rights to liberty.



> To the people of Tivoli Gardens, Christopher Coke is the "president" - but he is also considered one of the most dangerous narcotics kingpins in the world by the US justice department.


Would that be the same US Justice Department that hasn't even arrested a single bankster in the multi-trillion-dollar bailout heist?



> If you're going to be a statist criminal


<yawn>  Stupid garbage beneath comment snipped.

----------


## Roy L

> 1. Not leaving does not equal consent.


Yes, it does.



> 2. Leaving doesn't free people from continuing to be conquered by the regime that subjugates them.


How so?



> Where did you get that idea? I never said anything about anarchy.


Then cut the BS that implies no government revenue is a viable alternative to LVT.



> Sure, there are all those things. Are they supposed to be proof that the institution providing them can't be tyrannical?


No, they are supposed to be -- and are -- proof that the institution providing them *is* providing them, and they are not nothing but *something*.



> Throughout history tyrants have generally funded those sorts of things.


But only minimally and unaccountably, unlike in a modern democracy.



> But then there are also plenty of other things (or even just the particular ways money is spent even on those things) that the regime spends money on for the particular advantage of things like banks, unions, the military industrial complex.


True, just as managers working for private corporations sometimes get out of control, or make huge but honest mistakes.  People aren't perfect, and they have to be held accountable.  This is not some sort of revelation to you, is it?



> The great majority of what the regimes that subjugate us spend our money on aren't things that anyone could call "public goods" with a straight face.


That depends on where you live, and what you consider public goods.  Certainly the USA spends immense sums on things that aren't public goods in any sense.



> And many of the ones that are public goods could be better provided by free market alternatives.


That is false pretty much by definition.



> Those that couldn't be could be provided by groups of people voluntarily agreeing among each other to establish republics.


No.  It is obvious -- or should be -- that governments have to be -- and consequently always have been -- based on unitary control over land, not unanimous consent among people.

----------


## EcoWarrier



----------


## Steven Douglas

> 


Love this video. This trite piece of Geoist propaganda fluff is one of the best cases against Geoism yet. 

2:16 - *"Should any one person have the right to leech off the hard work of those who use the land for their survival?"*

I fixed it:

Should *anyone, singular or collective, public or private*, have the right to monopolize land and leech off the hard work of individuals who depend upon exclusive use of land for their survival?

The Geoist argument is very much like Dennis Kucinich's argument about so-called "ending" the Fed, which is fundamentally similar to the way Geoists want to "end" landownership (to the extent that it's taxed, and therefore land RENTAL in essence). 

The monopoly power of the Fed to debauch the currency through legalized counterfeiting is NOT what Dennis Kucinich is railing against, and not what he wants ended. He likes that bull$#@!, and wants all of that power to remain completely intact. His ONLY beef with the Fed is that it's privately controlled. Place THE POWER TO DEBAUCH THE CURRENCY under Treasury, and suddenly Darth Vader is transformed into Obi Wan Kenobie -  our only hope. 

Yes, Kucinich sincerely intends to use his powers to steal from people only for good. 

The Geoist argument about landownership bears uncanny similarity to that of Kucinich regarding private ownership of the Fed.  It's NOT landownership and collection of land rents that Geoists are railing against at all. Their ONLY beef is that it's privately controlled! Otherwise, the very power they see as unspeakably evil and responsible for most of the poverty and misery around the globe is only seen as evil _when it is in private hands_.  Somehow that same exact power will magically transform to a _Good and Wonderful Panacea_ when that monopolistic rent-collecting ability is in the exclusive hands of the state, on the utterly naive assumption that at least the state can "compensate" people for what it allowed a few to take from them (so long as the price is right, natch).  

Geoists do NOT seek to preclude the possibility of a few private entities having exclusive monopoly privilege on land. That is encouraged, in fact, because for them it is only a matter of price _that flows to the state_ (which mindless collectivists conflate with 'the people').  

The question for me is not who is best suited (public or private) to be a leech, but rather whether leeching by anyone at all should be permitted? The Geoist solution is not to prevent leeching, but only who should act as middle man on the take in that process.

Both Public and Private entities, like any crime-lord, CAN and often do "pour wealth into the communities".  There is no guarantee or requirement that any of them will.  The same funds that can be used as wealth redistribution can also be used for war.  Comes the decidedly mindless and leftist response, "Well, at least government is answerable to the people!", an utterly naive assumption, since the more centralized a controlling entity, the less answerable it is to individual wills and voices, as individual rights are supplanted by the tyrannies of ruling majorities, oligarchies and elites.    

*No landlord, bank or other entity, created the Earth.* says the video. 

I fixed it for them:

*No landlord, bank or other entity, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, SINGULAR OR COLLECTIVE, created the Earth.*

The "Kommunist Kitty" comic (02:43) was truly ironic and too funny.  

"All your means of production are belong to us", says Kommunist Kitty, as one of the false choices presented in the video. The second choice is a contrast between a morbidly obese boy eating at McDonalds (the Fat greedy landowning West) vs. the emaciated form of a starving boy of about the same age from a third world country.  Somalia if Roy had a say in the matter.   

If the video was honest, the next panel could have shown "Land Socialist Kitty" saying *"ALL OF ONE of your means of production are belong to us!"*, because that's what Geoism is all about, in essence, which is why it is sometimes referred to Socialism Lite (even though Marx railed against it as the last ditch of capitalism, arrogating rents for an entire means of production to the state did not go far enough for his tastes). 

Great video, thanks for sharing!

----------


## Roy L

> That's a loaded fool's question, rife with circular reasoning, and laden with bull$#@! assumptions and presumptions, that requires no answer, but does warrant a challenge of the very premises of the question.


No, you are just lying again, as usual.  It is a very clear and simple question, with no circular reasoning, no assumptions or presumptions, and it definitely requires an answer.  You just can't give one.



> I don't give a $#@! how production is "aided" in your mind by anything, Roy,


Correct.  You don't give a $#@! how production is aided because you intend to take a portion of others' production without contributing anything that aids production.  



> because the be-all-end-all of life is not production,


Actually, production is *exactly* what the be-all and end-all of life is: without production, we starve to death.  It's that simple.



> nor is it what you loosely term "producer".


There are producers, and there are parasites.  You intend to be one of the latter.  Simple.



> With your whacked out reasoning, everyone who happens to exist within a nebulous blob you call "community" is a "producer",


No, that is a lie.  The landowners obviously are not producers.  Many others who do not produce -- criminals, the mentally deranged and mentally deficient, retired seniors, the physically disabled, children, etc. -- are not producers, either.  But producers need land to produce anything, and it is *landowners* who extort wealth from them in return for not preventing production, not criminals, the mentally deranged, retired seniors, children, etc.



> from which landowners are all "demanding" something.


All landowners demand that others give up their liberty to use the land unless they pay what the landowner demands.



> And demanding from whom?


From any who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.



> Once again, that Holy Geoist Collectivist Trinity of "Government-Nature-Community" -- the Geoist Apostle's Creed that force-melds them together as One Provider, Indivisible Uber Alles, mit liberty und justice fuhrer all, in your mind, on whose collectivized behalf you presume to speak. That is the epitome of arrogant, presumptuous bull$#@!.


Incoherent and dishonest fulmination beneath comment.



> On the contrary, everyone that suckles closest to the teats of state under that system is a land parasite,


Disgraceful lie lacking any factual content.  Government employees and contractors are being paid wages for their labor, like any other working person, and their labor is the SOURCE of the land rent that pays their wages.



> sucking life blood and real value from the real producers.


No, that's clearly a filthy, evil lie, as the producers pay no more to the community in LVT than they would be paying to private landowners in rent.



> And once again, your paradigm begins with the circular presumption that the _collectivist state_ is the ultimate owner of all land (which is "unownable" even by the state, based on the semantics of your Geoist Creed),


Lie.  Government administers possession and use of land because that is what government IS; and it does so in trust for the community, just as governments administer use of rivers, the oceans, the atmosphere, satellite orbits, etc., not as an owner of what can't rightly be owned.



> and even though it contributed no more value to *raw unimproved land* than anyone else.


No, that's clearly just another huge, disgraceful lie from you.  The unimproved value of raw land is created by the services and infrastructure government provides and the opportunities and amenities the community provides -- which in turn could not exist without the services and infastructure government provides.

You know this.  You just decided deliberately to lie about it.



> That's how you can, with a straight face even, see the state as the owner of a land grocery store called EARTH, and how you can refer to landowners who don't pay a rent tax thieves.


That government administers possession and use of land in trust for the people who live on it is indisputable; and that the landowner is a thief who takes without contributing anything in return is also indisputable, as already proved by the story of the bandit in the pass.



> ..of a $#@!ing hive collective, no less.


You use "collective" as a meaningless general-purpose pejorative.  The relevant right is the INDIVIDUAL right to liberty, which the landowner forcibly removes.



> But even a grocery store is a moronic analogue, because they don't RENT anything, excepting perhaps Rug Doctor machines.


Ignoratio elenchi fallacy.  The ongoing benefits the landowner takes from society week after week by owning the land are like the food a shopper takes home to eat week after week.



> Whatever you BUY from a grocery store is YOURS to dispose of as you please, in perpetuity, with nothing owing afterward.


Another ignoratio elenchi fallacy.  The ongoing benefits the landowner takes from society by owning the land arise from ongoing government expenditures on services and infrastructure; there is no way of knowing in advance exactly what they will be and how much they will be worth; they therefore can't be paid for with a one-time payment any more than the groceries you take home week after week can all be paid for in advance without knowing what they will be.



> The statist owners of the LAND RENTAL STORE aren't selling anything but other people's rights,


Lie disproved above.  It is selling the privilege of excluding others from *what government and the community provide in the first place*.



> then giving out fake titles of ownership that aren't really ownership titles at all, as they are all tantamount to rental agreements for something that can be rented out but never truly owned by any individual, given that perpetual rental payments are required.


Land obviously can't rightly be owned.  Your refusal to know that fact can't alter it.



> So my liberty right is "held in abeyance",


Yep.  Just as with private landowning, except that you get just compensation for what you are being deprived of.



> the state receives the value it was sold for in return,


Yep.  Because the community the government represents, not the landowner, is the *source* of that value.



> and somehow that means that I am "earning" commensurate value in return.


You are being paid for something you are giving up to aid production, so yes, you are earning a share of that production just as much as someone who gives up their capital to aid production earns the interest on it.



> That's only accurate IF I AM THE $#@!ING STATE.


Nonsense disproved above.



> Now we get to the part where you throw everyone a UIE redemption coupon and call it a good day. Auction someone's else's natural liberty rights and conflate compensation to the state as being the same as compensation to individuals who rights were collectivized, parceled out, and auctioned off to A FEW - namely, the highest bidders.


No, you are just lying again.  The UIE gives each resident citizen FREE, SECURE ACCESS to the desirable services and infrastructure the landholders' LVT payments are paying for.  _ALL_ the compensation is thus transferred *from* the state right back to the citizens whose rights the landholders have violated.  The state doesn't *KEEP* *anything*: it all goes back to the citizens.  So unlike the system of private landowning, no one is robbed, because no one gets something for nothing.



> So production trumps liberty.


Bingo!  That is why we (almost all of us) choose to give up some liberty to live in settled communities instead of living in hunter-gatherer or nomadic herding tribes like our remote ancestors.



> Arbeit Macht Frei? Work makes free?  $#@! your Production-Trumps-Liberty Slave State.


<yawn>  That production trumps liberty is a fact of human evolution: settled communities massively out-produce and out-compete hunter-gatherers and nomadic herders.  Deal with it.  And try not to use slavery and Nazi references quite so dishonestly and inappropriately.



> Normative bull$#@!.  Land can be owned.


Only in the same trivial and uninformative sense that slaves could once be owned: legally.



> Whether it can "rightly be owned" (in the strictly moral sense you are using) is another question, and precisely what is being debated herein. You want the immorality of landownership established up front, so that you can argue from that premise without it being a normative.  Impossible.


I don't believe in the normative-positive dichotomy.  "Normative" statements are merely positive statements about the evolutionary effects of individual human behavior that are very difficult to test, confirm, or falsify.

But we don't have to go into that.  It will be sufficient to agree on a "normative" basis for discussion: equal human rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor.  On the basis of those rights, landowning cannot be justified, as honest rights theorists have been concluding for centuries.  You just don't believe in those rights.



> The deprivation of someone else's "liberty" TO THAT LAND, which is inherent in private landowning OF THAT LAND is only a problem when there are no alternatives - no other land available.


No, that's a bald falsehood.  When Crusoe points his musket at Friday and tells him to get to work or get back in the water, it couldn't matter less that there are other islands miles away across the ocean that Friday could theoretically swim to.  When Dirtowner Harry cocks his revolver and tells his newly enslaved victim to ask himself if he feels thirsty today, it couldn't matter less that there's plenty of fresh water in Lake Superior.

You are just talking stupid, dishonest garbage, as usual.



> That's where real people get caught between the PRIVATE ROCK of speculation and the STATE'S HARD PLACE of land preservation and land usage zoning, with an unholy $#@!ing partnership between public and private collectivist interests that results in ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY OF SUPPLY, and the equally artificial and completely distorted skyrocketing values that result.


There is only one thing that ever causes skyrocketing land values: the expectation of being able to take much more from society than one repays in taxes.



> Combine that with the fact that EVERY MARKET PARTICIPANT, under the present system AND YOURS, is presumed equal, as having equal rights.  So foreigners, corporations, fictitious persons, collectives both public and private, and anyone else acting as a matter of privilege and not as an individual with truly inalienable rights, ALL COMPETE.


They all compete, but only in a rent-seeking exercise: they only compete to pocket what the landowner is privileged to take from society and not repay in taxes.



> You see a land rent tax as discouraging monopolistic speculation and ownership of idle, undeveloped lands that are withheld from the market.


Which it definitely is.



> But your response is not to make that behavior a crime, which could end the problem of liberty access to those with actual rights.


Making it a crime is idiotic, distortionary, and makes it a source of costs rather than revenue.



> And you DON'T even acknowledge that the state is THE WORST OFFENDER when it comes to WITHHOLDING LAND FROM THE MARKET, and creating artificial scarcity by other means, as is the case with zoning laws.


<sigh>  But that is the case *now* only *BECAUSE* the state does not recover the land value it creates and gives away to private landowners!  If it recovered all of that welfare subsidy giveaway for public purposes and benefit, there would be no financial motive for either the state or private landholders to withhold land from use.



> Furthermore, THE STATE IS ALWAYS IMMUNE FROM TAXATION.  You don't think it OUGHT to be, but what you think OUGHT to be doesn't mean $#@!, as history and reality tell another story.


As above.  If the state is recovering all the land value it creates, it has a financial motive to treat unused and under-used land as an opportunity cost.



> Not as you see "liberty rights", that's for damned sure.


You do not believe in liberty rights at all.



> I don't believe that being "otherwise at liberty" to use lands that are already exclusively held as a de facto right.


You refuse to know the objective physical fact that land being "already exclusively held" just means that its holder purposes to use force (or more often, get government to use force on his behalf) to prevent others from exercising their natural physical liberty to use it.  That is the only difference between the land that people have always been naturally at liberty to use and "already exclusively held" land.



> That land is taken.


No, it has not been taken anywhere.  Land being "taken" doesn't mean anything other than that others' liberty to use it has been forcibly taken from them.



> Move the $#@! on.


NO.  I have as much right to use what nature provided as you do, and you cannot delete my rights by cursing at me.



> If there's no other land available, ask whether the scarcity is natural or artificial in origin.


It couldn't matter less if there is other land available.  You have no right to stop me from using THAT land just by claiming to "already exclusively hold" it.



> If artificial monopolistic control is being exercised, identify who, (public or private, singular or collective), is exercising that control, withholding good land and making it artificially scarce, and CHOP THEIR $#@!ING HEADS OFF.


I have a better idea: I'll identify the evil, greedy filth who want to remove others' rights to liberty in order to extort wealth from them, and chop THEIR $#@!ing heads off.



> Don't use Eminent Domain laws to force Granny to sell TO A $#@!ING DEVELOPER at a low price so that we can make way for a shopping mall.


You not only hate liberty, justice, and truth; you hate the free market for the BENEFIT it provides of moving resources into the most productive hands.  I suspect this is because you are well aware that those hands are not yours.



> That's exactly backwards, using a very "ROYESQUE" emphasis on productivity, and only as it suits the interests of "the community", as loosely and poop-stupidly collectivized and ill-defined.


<yawn>  You refuse to know facts of economics.  Simple.



> Those same eminent domain laws could be used to simply recognize, acknowledge and identify land that is being speculated on, and its value seriously distorted by major players, including those who act as a matter of privilege and not right.


There is no way to identify such land, and all landowners act as a matter of privilege and not right.



> Want to discourage speculation such that a "tax" on land actually benefits REAL PEOPLE CONCERNED?  Do the opposite.  Force the land speculators to sell at a price commensurate with pre-speculation market value.  Let them take a bath.  Just the possibility that it could happen - ROUTINELY - will discourage speculation.


??  This, from the guy who talks about a right to own land??  ROTFL!!



> I don't give a $#@! about your opinion about how the massive public parks in Hong Kong (all land withheld from the market) are so difficult for THE $#@!ING STATE to develop.  There are people living in coffin cages as homes who I'm sure would love to stake out a parcel they can call their own and pitch a tent there.  But they can't.  it's not because the land is so expensive to develop - it's because IT IS ILLEGAL.


I don't think tent cities are a rational answer to HK's housing shortage.  The land needs to be developed for high-intensity use, which means allocating it to a productive user.  And if the government were making an effort to recover more of the rent, that is exactly what would be happening.



> Your UIE pipe dream INDISPUTABLY does not exist except as a proposal in your mind, for something that is part of your version of Geoism as you see it, but quite apart from LVT, which is nothing more than an ad valorem tax on the unimproved rental value of land -- a revenue stream without regard to exemptions, dividends, or expenditures.


You are trying to change the subject again.  LVT is not the goal, it is a means to the end of securing and reconciling the equal rights of all.  I have shown why the UIE is a necessary component of LVT if it is to achieve that goal.



> MANDATORY PAYMENT of land rent is human-enslaving,


Hence the UIE, which provides just as secure rent-free access to land as your individual allodial titles, but EQUALLY and SUSTAINABLY.



> not because the state, acting as an idle landowner,


Stop telling such stupid lies.  The state provides services and infrastructure that give the land value, and enable the community to provide the opportunities and amenities that give it even more value.



> MIGHT contribute value back (and then again, might $#@!ing not).


The number of states that have been so bad they did not contribute any land value can be counted on your fingers.



> What makes MANDATORY PAYMENT of land rent human-enslaving is the fact that it never goes away.


Nope.  What is self-evidently human-enslaving is landowning WITHOUT payment to compensate those whose rights to liberty are thus removed.



> There is no path to freedom FROM THOSE PAYMENTS.


Justice does not provide a path to "freedom" from justice, which is the only possible meaning of being "free" from the responsibility to pay for what you are taking.  True.



> And the notion of "then take $#@!tier, cheaper land", or "exercise Roy's Phantom UIE value exemption", or "produce more so that you can afford to $#@! everyone else off the better lands" are not solutions.


They are not only solutions, but incomparably better solutions than your notion of allodial titles.



> I AM SPARTUCUS.


You are laughable.



> You're trying to tell the slaves in your artificial $#@!ing LVT arena how alive and free they can be if they are but more competitive productive


Lie.  No one is compelled to labor under the LVT + UIE system, so no one is a slave, stop lying.  People are alive and free under the LVT + UIE system because they have secure, free access to enough land of their choice to live on, which they NEVER have under your evil system of private land theft which literally DOES compel people to labor -- which is slavery by definition -- for the benefit of landowners just to survive.



> -- as benefits the state, which is SOMEHOW "the people" in some very demented minds.


No, you are just trying another version of the stupid lie that government officials get to keep tax revenue for themselves.  The state is not keeping the rent, it's spending it for public purposes and benefit as expressed by democratic processes.



> *Productivity-for-the-state Makes Free* can kiss my ass.


<yawn>  Production is for consumption.  Duh.  



> Free makes free.


And landowning makes slaves.



> Sovereignty makes free.


Says Crusoe to Friday, pointing his musket at him and giving him the choice of getting to work or getting back in the water.



> Freedom of sole despotic ownership over one's own Life, Liberty, Land, Labor and Capital makes free.


We know kings are free.  It's the rest who are enslaved by their ownership of the land.



> Perpetual Value Capture on behalf of a nebulous collective is HUMAN ENSLAVEMENT.


Already proved a stupid lie many times.  The recovery of the PUBLICLY CREATED value is on behalf of the individuals whose liberty rights have been forcibly removed.



> SOCIALIST IN ITS INCEPTION.


Stupid lie in its inception.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> 2:16 - *"Should any one person have the right to leech off the hard work of those who use the land for their survival?"*
> 
> I fixed it:
> 
> Should *anyone, singular or collective, public or private*, have the right to monopolize land and leech off the hard work of individuals who depend upon exclusive use of land for their survival?


My God!  He is getting it!  He goes on....




> It's NOT landownership and collection of land rents that Geoists are railing against at all. Their ONLY beef is that it's privately controlled!


*Total and utter drivel.* Geoists care not a jot if the land is publicly or privately owned (read Progress and Poverty) as long as the economic growth created by the community that soaks into the land crystallizing as land values is reclaimed by the community who created it in the first instance - and the productive work by private individuals is not penalized or punished by taxes in any form.

After I thought you were getting it, you messed it all up.  What a let down.

< snip rambling and babbling drivel >

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Love this video.


You must read and understand this:

http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htmThe complete book: http://www.henrygeorge.org/pdfs/PandP_Drake.pdf

All free.  Then all will be become must clearer for you.

----------


## erowe1

You guys keep talking about "the community." What is the community? Is it any smaller than the population of the world? If so, why?

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Blah blah typical, predictable evasive drivel with erroneous and unconvincing propaganda screed blah blah...


You're wrong, Roy.  Of course you are. You know you are.  Of course you do. 




> You guys keep talking about "the community." What is the community? Is it any smaller than the population of the world? If so, why?




Good luck getting a coherent response to that chink in their collectivist armor.

----------


## Roy L

> Should *anyone, singular or collective, public or private*, have the right to monopolize land and leech off the hard work of individuals who depend upon exclusive use of land for their survival?


That is exactly the point.  Too bad you don't mean or understand it.



> The Geoist argument is very much like Dennis Kucinich's argument about so-called "ending" the Fed, which is fundamentally similar to the way Geoists want to "end" landownership (to the extent that it's taxed, and therefore land RENTAL in essence).


Right: in both cases, it's about devoting publicly created value to public purposes and benefit rather than giving it away to rich, greedy takers and consequently having to steal from producers to pay for public goods.



> The monopoly power of the Fed to debauch the currency through legalized counterfeiting is NOT what Dennis Kucinich is railing against, and not what he wants ended. He likes that bull$#@!, and wants all of that power to remain completely intact. His ONLY beef with the Fed is that it's privately controlled. Place THE POWER TO DEBAUCH THE CURRENCY under Treasury, and suddenly Darth Vader is transformed into Obi Wan Kenobie -  our only hope.


You don't understand what Kucinich is proposing, or the current monetary system.  It is not the Fed that creates most of our money, it is private commercial banks who issue debt money in the course of lending.



> Yes, Kucinich sincerely intends to use his powers to steal from people only for good.


Idiotic lie.  Maintaining the value of currency doesn't steal from anyone, stop lying.



> The Geoist argument about landownership bears uncanny similarity to that of Kucinich regarding private ownership of the Fed.


As explained above.



> It's NOT landownership and collection of land rents that Geoists are railing against at all. Their ONLY beef is that it's privately controlled!


No.  LVT + UIE keeps land under private control.  It is the private appropriation of the publicly created rent *value* that we propose to end.



> Otherwise, the very power they see as unspeakably evil and responsible for most of the poverty and misery around the globe is only seen as evil _when it is in private hands_.


No, it can be abused in government hands, too, as in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, etc., so stop lying.  The difference is that private hands are INHERENTLY not accountable to the people whose rights landowning abrogates, and have no role in securing and reconciling their individual rights.  Government hands are (in a functioning democracy), and do.



> Somehow that same exact power will magically transform to a _Good and Wonderful Panacea_ when that monopolistic rent-collecting ability is in the exclusive hands of the state, on the utterly naive assumption that at least the state can "compensate" people for what it allowed a few to take from them (so long as the price is right, natch).


No, you are just telling stupid lies again.  As usual.  Transferring land rent to the public sector won't solve anything in the absence of the specific provisions of LVT + UIE under democratically accountable government.



> Geoists do NOT seek to preclude the possibility of a few private entities having exclusive monopoly privilege on land. That is encouraged, in fact,


Lie.  LVT encourages more *widespread* landholding by reducing acquisition cost of land to zero and encouraging release of hoarded land onto the market.  And the UIE guarantees that EVERYONE who wants it can have "exclusive monopoly privileges" on enough good land to live on, FOR FREE.



> because for them it is only a matter of price _that flows to the state_ (which mindless collectivists conflate with 'the people').


<yawn>  Again, that is just stupid garbage from you.  Of course the state is the representative of the people.  Who else could be?  What do you think "the state" does with the money?  Keep it?  How?  Do you claim that government officials just pocket it?  How?



> The question for me is not who is best suited (public or private) to be a leech, but rather whether leeching by anyone at all should be permitted?


Your favored system of allodial titles indisputably enables the private landowner to be a leech.



> The Geoist solution is not to prevent leeching, but only who should act as middle man on the take in that process.


No, you are just lying again.  No one can leech under the LVT + UIE system, because no one gets something for nothing.  "The state" -- i.e., in fact, government employees and contractors -- only gets LVT revenue to the extent that it is doing the work to provide the services and infrastructure that make the land valuable, and that enable the community to provide the opportunities and amenities that make it even more valuable.

Your claims are uniformly absurd lies.



> Both Public and Private entities, like any crime-lord, CAN and often do "pour wealth into the communities".


Oh, really??  Then how's that Somalia thing workin' for ya?  Seems like those crime lords don't be pourin' much wealth into the community.

Enough of your stupid, tedious lies.



> There is no guarantee or requirement that any of them will.


No, that's clearly just another absurd lie from you, as public entities have a *mandate* to do so, and are *accountable to the public* for doing so.  Private entities don't, and aren't.

And your "crime-lord" crap is just stupid, animal howling.



> The same funds that can be used as wealth redistribution can also be used for war.


See how you have to tell another stupid lie by pretending that government doesn't provide any desirable services or infrastructure, but only redistributes wealth and wages war?



> Comes the decidedly mindless and leftist response, "Well, at least government is answerable to the people!",


There is nothing mindless or leftist about it, stop lying.  "Mindless" more accurately describes your anti-fact, anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-truth, anti-economic, anti-logic twaddle.



> an utterly naive assumption, since the more centralized a controlling entity, the less answerable it is to individual wills and voices, as individual rights are supplanted by the tyrannies of ruling majorities, oligarchies and elites.


Which proves the advantage of LVT +UIE even more: it is ideally suited to small, local, and highly decentralized government, as land can't move.   



> *No landlord, bank or other entity, created the Earth.* says the video. 
> 
> I fixed it for them:


No, you didn't.  It was indisputably correct as it was.  All you did was demonstrate your dishonesty.



> "All your means of production are belong to us", says Kommunist Kitty, as one of the false choices presented in the video.


That IS the socialist choice, stop lying.



> The second choice is a contrast between a morbidly obese boy eating at McDonalds (the Fat greedy landowning West) vs. the emaciated form of a starving boy of about the same age from a third world country.  Somalia if Roy had a say in the matter.


I don't think that was an effective illustration.  The treadmill and the escalator would have been better.



> If the video was honest,


???  *This*, from _YOU_?!!?!?!?  ROTFL!!!!!



> the next panel could have shown "Land Socialist Kitty" saying *"ALL OF ONE of your means of production are belong to us!"*, because that's what Geoism is all about, in essence, which is why it is sometimes referred to Socialism Lite


No honest person refers to it thus.

----------


## Roy L

> You guys keep talking about "the community." What is the community?


The people living in one society with a shared history, laws, political system and sense of social cohesion, and who thus consider each other fellow members of their community.



> Is it any smaller than the population of the world? If so, why?


Yes, because people in different countries don't have the same laws, history, political system or sense of social cohesion, and thus do not consider each other fellow members of their communities.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes, because people in different countries don't have the same laws, history, political system or sense of social cohesion, and thus do not consider each other fellow members of their communities.


Then why do you hold Hong Kong up as a model for us to strive for?  It's clearly an entirely different culture.  IIRC, you earlier claimed that there is enough universality for the Hong Kong model to work in a heterogenous society like the US (though I never saw you address the issue of complex, multi-cultural societies.  If you did, please direct me to that post).

----------


## EcoWarrier



----------


## Steven Douglas

> Right: in both cases...You don't understand what Kucinich is proposing...
> 
> Maintaining the value of currency doesn't steal from anyone, stop lying.


LOL, there's a leftist, collectivist pseudolibertarian nutjob view in a nutshell, when you refer to deliberate, artificial, inflationary EROSION of value as "maintaining" value.  The invisible tax levied by through the deliberate SIPHONING of value from ALL savings is not stealing, only because in your twisted mental process states are incapable of theft. 




> LVT + UIE keeps land under private control.


Yes, very private. Like "highest bidder to the state" exclusive private.  Thanks for your two part proposal, we'll take it under advisement. 




> It is the private appropriation of the publicly created rent *value* that we propose to end.


All value is privately created, even under the most communistic or totalitarian of regimes.  There is no such thing as "publicly created value".  The government appropriation of *privately created* rent value is what you are proposing -- and you have to leap through some strange twisted logic hoops to justify it.




> Transferring land rent to the public sector won't solve anything in the absence of the specific provisions of LVT + UIE under democratically accountable government.


Again, thanks you for your Parts A + B proposal, with PART A being how to get revenue from renting out other people's rights, and PART B being what you think ought to be given in return. We'll take it under advisement.




> LVT encourages...


- Artificial scarcity through zoning and withholding market availability of lands.
- Favoritism and crony capitialism, through special exemptions, enterprise zones, etc., that give economic advantages to others.
- Foreign, private collective and privileged entity competition status on even footing with real individuals.  




> And the UIE guarantees


...anything from everything to nothing whatsoever, depending how (or even whether) one is offered.




> What do you think "the state" does with the money?  Keep it?  How?  Do you claim that government officials just pocket it?  How?


You're really that $#@!ing naive, that daft?  The power to choose winners and losers means that you don't pocket public money directly. That's a simplistic, even infantile thought, and not how it happens in reality.  In reality, you butter your own bread by buttering someone else's.  It's the kind of bull$#@! that allows a former governor to go onto become the head of MF Global, and senators who go on to become highly paid lobbyists -- or tenured academics to go onto become the water carrier figure head for the Federal Reserve.  

*"Do you claim that government officials just pocket it?"* 

::: blink blink ::: You have to be playing stupid, although it would go a LONG way toward explaining your absolutely strange-genes trust of government.  Either you're on the take in some way -- suckling right from Lady Liberty's teats in some way -- in denial with an overpowering sense of cognitive dissonance on crack, or you really are that naive, that stupid.  I can't conceive of another explanation as to why you're so far out in la-la-land on this that makes any sense.




> Your favored system of allodial titles indisputably enables the private landowner to be a leech.


Leeches on who? If all individuals, and ONLY INDIVIDUALS WITH ACTUAL RIGHTS had access to allodial titles, who would they be leeching from? Not each other. PRIVILEGED ENTITIES? Because that's what the majority of commerce is comprised of, which allodial title to INDIVIDUALS ONLY would free them from.  Your ABSOLUTE LUNACY is to make these entities -- these "highest bidders for other people's rights" -- THE RULE.  And for that you (personally) would be willing to throw them a UIE as a compensation bone. But you want individuals -- real people with real rights -- subjected to those same rules, as if they were all a bunch of would-be thieves.   

Apply LVT by all means -- to PRIVILEGED ENTITIES. That discourages speculation from those acting as a matter of commerce and investment only.  That naturally, AUTOMATICALLY accomplishes something two-fold, without need for ANY PART A/B LVT/UIE bull$#@!:  Firstly, it funds government services. Secondly, it keeps the cost of ALLODIAL TITLES TO REAL PEOPLE WITH RIGHTS TO THEM low.  Naturally, not artificially.  Then, and only then, are the children free. 

Until you learn to distinguish between real individuals with real inalienable rights and privileged entities of every stripe, NOTHING you try will work. It will all result in a massive separation of classes, corruption, the destruction of anything resembling a middle class, and ultimately growing poverty, as the ranks of the lower classes expand. 

The rest of your mindless repetitive twaddle snipped for brevity.

----------


## Roy L

> Then why do you hold Hong Kong up as a model for us to strive for?


I have never held Hong Kong up as a model for us to strive for, stop lying.  I have simply pointed out that it conclusively refutes all stupid, evil liars who claim that private landowning is necessary or even favorable to liberty, prosperity and progress.



> It's clearly an entirely different culture.


And...?  The laws of economics are the same.



> IIRC, you earlier claimed that there is enough universality for the Hong Kong model to work in a heterogenous society like the US (though I never saw you address the issue of complex, multi-cultural societies.  If you did, please direct me to that post).


Depends what you mean by, "the Hong Kong model."  I don't see any reason why leasing of publicly held land would not work in the USA.  It works well enough even on Indian reservations, using lease systems little better, and sometimes worse, than the Hong Kong model.  70% of the land in Singapore is publicly held, much of it leased out as in HK.  Singapore works well economically and socially, and is more multicultural than the USA.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I have never held Hong Kong up as a model for us to strive for, stop lying.


True enough. Technically speaking. But he does hold it up as a model of something he's being utterly dishonest about.  

Roy uses Hong Kong as a dishonest refutation of a strawman argument he wishes others would make. Hong Kong only really proves that enormous amounts of economic activity can occur in *any major financial center of the world*, without regard to private landownership OR private longterm leaseholds.  But since long term leaseholds are tantamount to ownership in Hong Kong, and by themselves haven't stopped skyrocketing land values or land speculation, Roy really hasn't proved $#@! with Hong Kong with regard to landownership or the lack thereof.  He's splitting hairs, and quite dishonestly.  

Where he's really dishonest is in referring to Hong Kong as a model of _"liberty, prosperity and progress"_.  Pay no attention to the massively widening wealth gap, or HK's middle class vanishing act.  Roy confuses simple GDP and economic activity with "liberty, prosperity and progress", without saying _whose_ liberty, _whose_ prosperity, _whose_ progress is being served, and in what direction it's all headed there.  

Excerpted from a very good read:




> "There is hardly a middle class in the city at all," said statistician Dr Paul Yip Siu-fai, a senior lecturer at the University of Hong Kong.
> 
> A Hong Kong household earning HK$55,000 a month or above could be classified as middle class, Yip said. Yet only about 10 per cent of the 2.4 million households in the city earn that much, according to government figures (an average household has 3.2 persons).


But hey, kids, never mind that.  You'll see nothing but "liberty, prosperity and progress" in Hong Kong once you ignore actual individuals and put on your aggregate collectivist thinking cap. Why, look at all that GDP, or the presence of so many skyscrapers and apartments. And liberty? Look at all those people bustling about, and moving around so freely!    

Hong Kong, London, New York City, and other mega-financial centers and hyper-dense horrors of human hive-dom, are not just examples NOT to follow: they exist in relative vacuums, feeding on the wider spread populations they routinely exploit. And I believe they are Ground Zero during a global financial collapse.

----------


## Roy L

> True enough. Technically speaking. But he does hold it up as a model of something he's being utterly dishonest about.


Lie.



> Roy uses Hong Kong as a dishonest refutation of a strawman argument he wishes others would make.


Lie.  I use it to refute a claim -- one cannot call it an "argument" -- that anti-LVT ninnies make routinely: that private property in land is as vital to liberty and prosperity as private property in products of labor.



> Hong Kong only really proves that enormous amounts of economic activity can occur in *any major financial center of the world*, without regard to private landownership OR private longterm leaseholds.


<yawn>  How did HK BECOME a major financial center of the world, hmmmm?  Blank out.



> But since long term leaseholds are tantamount to ownership in Hong Kong,


Lie.



> and by themselves haven't stopped skyrocketing land values or land speculation, Roy really hasn't proved $#@! with Hong Kong with regard to landownership or the lack thereof.


Lie.  I've proved that absence of private landowning has done nothing to prevent HK from being the freest and one of the most prosperous places on earth.



> He's splitting hairs, and quite dishonestly.


You are the very last person in the world who can accuse anyone else of dishonesty.



> Where he's really dishonest is in referring to Hong Kong as a model of _"liberty, prosperity and progress"_.


The statistics are indisputable.



> Pay no attention to the massively widening wealth gap, or HK's middle class vanishing act.  Roy confuses simple GDP and economic activity with "liberty, prosperity and progress", without saying _whose_ liberty, _whose_ prosperity, _whose_ progress is being served, and in what direction it's all headed there.


It's true that HK has become noticeably more corrupt and unequal since being taken over by China in 1997.  At that time, HK largely avoided the SE Asian financial crisis because land speculation WASN'T a major problem.  Nevertheless, the standard of living in HK continues to be much higher than in neighboring Macau, or Guangdong, or most other places in SE Asia.  



> But hey, kids, never mind that.  You'll see nothing but "liberty, prosperity and progress" in Hong Kong once you ignore actual individuals and put on your aggregate collectivist thinking cap. Why, look at all that GDP, or the presence of so many skyscrapers and apartments. And liberty? Look at all those people bustling about, and moving around so freely!


Compare the amount of liberty, prosperity and progress in HK to places where private landowning is firmly established but the government does not intervene massively to rescue the landless from consequent enslavement: Pakistan, the Philippines, Guatemala, Bangladesh, etc., etc.



> Hong Kong, London, New York City, and other mega-financial centers and hyper-dense horrors of human hive-dom,


Beautiful, Steven!  You have created your very own Yogi Berra-ism: nobody wants to live in HK, London, or NYC, there are too many people there!

ROTFLMAO!!!11!!1!!

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Lie.  I use it to refute a claim -- one cannot call it an "argument" -- that anti-LVT ninnies make routinely...


Which anti-LVT ninny, specifically?  Certainly nobody you were debating with in this thread.  Which makes it a strawman argument. 




> <yawn>  How did HK BECOME a major financial center of the world, hmmmm?  Blank out.


Not due to leaseholds of publicly owned lands, that's for damned sure. 




> I've proved that absence of private landowning has done nothing to prevent HK from being the freest and one of the most prosperous places on earth.


Nothing to prevent, nothing to cause...making direct landownership vs. private leaseholds utterly irrelevant - and your point utterly disingenuous. 




> You are the very last person in the world who can accuse anyone else of dishonesty.


Why? Because you repeatedly called me a liar?  Earth to Roy: You have ZERO credibility in the liar-calling department. You routinely call people liars. Repeatedly and often, to the point where it's absolutely meaningless coming from you. 




> Compare the amount of liberty, prosperity and progress in HK to places where private landowning is firmly established but the government does not intervene massively to rescue the landless from consequent enslavement: Pakistan, the Philippines, Guatemala, Bangladesh, etc., etc.


I flush that false choice right down the toilet. I'm the one arguing against privileged behavior that results in monopoly landownership and artificial value increases from speculation, especially by those with privileged status under the law. You're the one arguing for a COMPLETE monopoly on land rents, proposing that the abuse remain, but only that it be shifted to the state as great gobs of lumpy liberty and justice fun for everyone.




> Beautiful, Steven!  You have created your very own Yogi Berra-ism: nobody wants to live in HK, London, or NYC, there are too many people there!


Hey, Oblivious, Dishonest Strawman King, my claim wasn't that nobody wanted to live in those cities.  That would be stupid. Lots of people want to live below sea level in a hurricane zone too, what is that to me?  My claim - my prediction, really - is that those cities are not models to be followed, as they would be Ground Zero - the most dangerous, volatile places on Earth to live, and the last place you would want to be during a major global financial collapse. 




> ROTFLMAO!!!11!!1!!


That strikes me as forced, maniacal and glassy-eyed, but I like mine better: 

MOOHOOHAHAHAHA!

----------


## Origanalist

> Why? Because you repeatedly called me a liar? Earth to Roy: You have ZERO credibility in the liar-calling department. You routinely call people liars. Repeatedly and often, to the point where it's absolutely meaningless coming from you.


Ya think?




> That strikes me as forced, maniacal and glassy-eyed,


See above..................

----------


## Roy L

> LOL, there's a leftist, collectivist pseudolibertarian nutjob view in a nutshell, when you refer to deliberate, artificial, inflationary EROSION of value as "maintaining" value.


??  Huh?  Why even bother telling such stupid lies?  When you claim that the words, "maintain value" somehow change their meaning to "erode value" when I say them, you can only succeed in proving that you have converted yourself into a reeking, steaming, festering pile of stupid, evil, lying garbage.



> The invisible tax levied by through the deliberate SIPHONING of value from ALL savings is not stealing, only because in your twisted mental process states are incapable of theft.


It's not stealing because no one loses anything.



> All value is privately created,


False and stupid.  The value of fiat currency, just as one example, is indisputably publicly created.



> even under the most communistic or totalitarian of regimes.


<yawn>  False and stupid, as proved above.



> There is no such thing as "publicly created value".


False, stupid, and dishonest.  You just have to refuse to know facts that prove your beliefs are false, stupid, dishonest, and evil.



> The government appropriation of *privately created* rent value is what you are proposing --


No, that is of course a flat-out lie from you.  You cannot alter the fact that land value is publicly created by refusing to know it.



> and you have to leap through some strange twisted logic hoops to justify it.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the steaming, reeking, festering pile of stupid, evil, lying garbage that claims "maintain value" changes its meaning to "erode value" when I say it, and that there is no such thing as publicly created value, hilariously accusing ME of leaping through strange, twisted logic loops...?



> Again, thanks you for your Parts A + B proposal, with PART A being how to get revenue from renting out other people's rights, and PART B being what you think ought to be given in return. We'll take it under advisement.


I realize you would prefer to steal other people's rights and give nothing in return.



> - Artificial scarcity through zoning and withholding market availability of lands.


Already proved a lie.



> - Favoritism and crony capitialism, through special exemptions, enterprise zones, etc., that give economic advantages to others.


Already proved a lie.



> - Foreign, private collective and privileged entity competition status on even footing with real individuals.


Already proved a lie.



> ...anything from everything to nothing whatsoever, depending how (or even whether) one is offered.


Snipping what I have said and substituting stupid, dishonest $#!+ that you make up does not alter what I have plainly written, sorry.



> You're really that $#@!ing naive, that daft?  The power to choose winners and losers means that you don't pocket public money directly.


OK, so you agree that you were lying when you claimed LVT revenue would be pocketed by the state or government officials.  Good.



> That's a simplistic, even infantile thought, and not how it happens in reality.  In reality, you butter your own bread by buttering someone else's.  It's the kind of bull$#@! that allows a former governor to go onto become the head of MF Global, and senators who go on to become highly paid lobbyists -- or tenured academics to go onto become the water carrier figure head for the Federal Reserve.


I understand how corruption works.  I am waiting for an explanation of how LVT enables or encourages it.

But I know I will be disappointed.



> *"Do you claim that government officials just pocket it?"* 
> 
> ::: blink blink ::: You have to be playing stupid, although it would go a LONG way toward explaining your absolutely strange-genes trust of government.  Either you're on the take in some way -- suckling right from Lady Liberty's teats in some way -- in denial with an overpowering sense of cognitive dissonance on crack, or you really are that naive, that stupid.  I can't conceive of another explanation as to why you're so far out in la-la-land on this that makes any sense.


<yawn>  Answer the question.



> Leeches on who?


All whose rights are consequently removed, but especially the productive.



> If all individuals, and ONLY INDIVIDUALS WITH ACTUAL RIGHTS had access to allodial titles, who would they be leeching from? Not each other.


Yes, of course each other.  Those with allodial titles to the most advantageous locations would be leeching off all who wanted -- and would otherwise be at liberty -- to use those locations.



> PRIVILEGED ENTITIES? Because that's what the majority of commerce is comprised of, which allodial title to INDIVIDUALS ONLY would free them from.


Lie.  It would only change the identity of the privileged entities to the individuals with titles to the most advantageous locations.



> Your ABSOLUTE LUNACY is to make these entities -- these "highest bidders for other people's rights" -- THE RULE.


<yawn>  That ABSOLUTE LUNACY is called the market, and getting the high bid for not exercising your rights is better than getting nothing, as under your system.



> And for that you (personally) would be willing to throw them a UIE as a compensation bone.


<yawn>  Better than robbing them of their rights and *NOT making ANY* compensation, as the current system does, and you purpose to do.



> But you want individuals -- real people with real rights -- subjected to those same rules, as if they were all a bunch of would-be thieves.


Anyone who would deprive others of their rights to liberty without making just compensation is indisputably a would-be thief.



> Apply LVT by all means -- to PRIVILEGED ENTITIES.


That is exactly my proposal, as all landholders are privileged entities.  You just want to be privileged and not let anyone identify that fact.



> That discourages speculation from those acting as a matter of commerce and investment only.  That naturally, AUTOMATICALLY accomplishes something two-fold, without need for ANY PART A/B LVT/UIE bull$#@!:  Firstly, it funds government services.


Which you falsely, stupidly and dishonestly claim do not increase land value.



> Secondly, it keeps the cost of ALLODIAL TITLES TO REAL PEOPLE WITH RIGHTS TO THEM low.


I.e., those who are privileged to own the most advantageous locations need not pay any compensation to those they deprive of them.  Check.



> Naturally, not artificially.


LOL!



> Then, and only then, are the children free.


LOL!  Under your brain-dead system the children work for the unearned profit of a privileged private landowner or starve to death, and you call that being "free."

Despicable.



> Until you learn to distinguish between real individuals with real inalienable rights and privileged entities of every stripe, NOTHING you try will work. It will all result in a massive separation of classes, corruption, the destruction of anything resembling a middle class, and ultimately growing poverty, as the ranks of the lower classes expand.


Stupid garbage with no basis in fact, logic or economics.

The rest of your mindless repetitive twaddle snipped for brevity.

----------


## Roy L

> Which anti-LVT ninny, specifically?


Origanalist offered a crude form of it in post #81 in this thread, though I did not use the example of Hong Kong to refute it.



> Certainly nobody you were debating with in this thread.


See above.



> Which makes it a strawman argument.


No, that is just another stupid lie from you.  HB introduced the topic of Hong Kong to this thread in post #209, referring to arguments made in other threads.  I answered him honestly and accurately, and you immediately had to start lying about what I had plainly written (your post #213).  That is how this works: I tell the truth; you then lie about what I plainly wrote; I identify the fact that you lied, and you then blubber and stamp your tiny foot because mean ol' Roy said you were _lyin_'.  It's always the same.



> Not due to leaseholds of publicly owned lands, that's for damned sure.


Due to that and the associated lack of taxes on financial transactions, and to minimal financial regulation by the UK colonial administration.



> Nothing to prevent, nothing to cause


??  Self-evidently false.  Economic activity is not nothing.



> ...making direct landownership vs. private leaseholds utterly irrelevant - and your point utterly disingenuous.


Stupid lie.



> Why? Because you repeatedly called me a liar?


No, because you have repeatedly, chronically, habitually and invariably lied.



> Earth to Roy: You have ZERO credibility in the liar-calling department.


More accurately, you would prefer that I did.



> You routinely call people liars.


Because they routinely lie.



> Repeatedly and often, to the point where it's absolutely meaningless coming from you.


It is not meaningless.  It is accurate in every case.



> I flush that false choice right down the toilet.


It's not a false choice, and of course you have to dismiss and evade it.



> I'm the one arguing against privileged behavior that results in monopoly landownership


All landownership is inherently monopolistic.



> and artificial value increases from speculation, especially by those with privileged status under the law.


No, you're not.  You're the one arguing for abolition of taxes on land owned by individuals, like the ancient Roman tax exemption for the nobles, which resulted in them owning all the good land.  Similarly, making individual landowning tax-exempt would just push all the good land into individuals' hands.  Corporations would just make secret deals with rich, greedy takers to sell them the land in return for lease-backs, etc.  Your brain-dead proposal would solve nothing.



> You're the one arguing for a COMPLETE monopoly on land rents, proposing that the abuse remain, but only that it be shifted to the state as great gobs of lumpy liberty and justice fun for everyone.


Lie.  There is no abuse when everyone's rights are secured and no one gets something for nothing.  That is merely a result that you cannot tolerate.



> Hey, Oblivious, Dishonest Strawman King, my claim wasn't that nobody wanted to live in those cities.


Oh, right, it was that they were "horrors of human hive-dom," or something stupid and dishonest like that.



> That would be stupid.


Hehe.  No $#!+, Sherlock.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> You're the one arguing for abolition of taxes on land owned by individuals, like the ancient Roman tax exemption for the nobles...


Hardly like ancient Rome. Nice slippery use of the word "nobles", as ancient Rome had a complex class structure with slaves, freedman and citizens, which further divided the legal status and powers of citizens based on criteria like ancestry, wealth, land and property (including horses and military equipment) already owned.  

In our case, there would be ZERO distinction amongst real and natural Citizens behaving and existing as a matter of right. They would all be the ONLY nobles in terms of equal inalienable rights, and should, therefore, be free - if not encouraged - to own the best land.  In your case, however, there is ZERO distinguishing of foreigners, corporations, and other entities acting and existing as matter of privilege, from real and natural Citizens. That's your fatal flaw, wherein exclusive landholdings are based solely on wealth. 




> Similarly, making individual landowning tax-exempt would just push all the good land into individuals' hands.


Not true, but if that was really the case, then problem solved.  However, it wouldn't happen that way. Entities that exist and behave as a matter of privilege could and would still own good lands.  They just have to pay the privilege/rental fee in the form of whatever taxes are demanded of them (LVT et al).  The real difference is that whatever land they did hold would have the equivalent of a burner placed under it, whereas the land owned by real individuals who exist and behave as a matter of inalienable rights would have no such burner underneath theirs. 




> Corporations would just make secret deals with rich, greedy takers to sell them the land in return for lease-backs, etc. Your brain-dead proposal would solve nothing.


Your brain-dead assumption is that allodial status would be inherent in the land, which status would somehow be transferable. That would not be the case. The status of any ownership title would be based on the inherent legal status of owner, which would NOT transfer with the land.  If a Citizen sells a parcel of land to another Citizen, there is no change in the allodial status of the title.  However, if that same parcel of land is *sold* to a privileged entity, like a foreigner or corporation, that _instantly becomes privileged ownership_ based on the new owner's status, and therefore subject to taxes.

And, incidentally, you're the one who thinks that rights and/or the economic value thereof should be arrogated, put into abeyance, transferred and sold to the highest bidder, like so many indulgences. Not me. I wouldn't sell my neighbor's soul down the river the way you would for a promised mess of UIE pottage, as if that made it all better.

Forcing the state to get its revenues from privileged entities only (foreign and domestic), with no power to tax or otherwise abrogate the rights of free and natural Citizens with whom those privileged entities compete, establishes a self-leveling market dynamic. The limit to the amounts and ways the state can tax its pool of privileged entities would be naturally capped by the threat of competition from the free and natural individuals with whom they compete, but who are not subject to those same regulations and taxes.  The more you tax Walmart, the better it is for Mom & Pop, who incidentally benefit from a tax on their competition, but from which they are forever exempt.  As it is now, Walmart is treated as a legal person with rights, and is actually on BETTER FOOTING with better legal status than Fred, of Fred's Hardware (before it went out of business).  Fred existed and acted as a matter of right, and should have been free. He could have passed on his advantages to the community, and remained in business.  Walmart, on the other hand, is a mega-corp that exists as a matter of privilege, as a fictitious creation of the state, and should therefore have been the ONLY one subject to taxes and regulatory controls by the state. 

What my proposal amounts to is *internal tariffs*, not restricted by type, which are applied EXCLUSIVELY to those with privileged status (e.g., foreigners as well as corporations foreign and domestic) who engage in privileged economic activity, _including landownership_, WITHIN OUR BORDERS.  So it's not the same as an import or export tax, or tariff on goods and services coming from other countries, which are sovereigns just like us, and free to compete.

We say that land, income, labor, capital, sales, etc., are taxed, but that's misleading. These are only the bases for the determination of a tax. In reality only acting entities, real or fictitious, are taxed, given they must pay them, regardless how they are derived.  They only HAPPEN to be determined on the basis of things like land, labor, capital, income, sales transactions, etc.,.  Calling it a land/sales/income/property/etc., tax causes the mental focus to be on WHAT is the basis for a tax, with only incidental regard to whom it might apply.  All of those bases are irrelevant under my proposal.  Any and ALL of those taxes can apply domestically to privileged entities, but would NOT apply to those real, free and natural Citizens who exist and act as a matter of right. 

Sales tax? Land Tax? Income Tax? Fine. Not applicable to real and natural Citizens with inalienable rights, who are completely immune - sovereign in that respect.  Likewise income, capital gains, property, LVT or anything else.  The people are free, to the extent that they exist and act as a matter of right.  Now comes the problem of funding government services, and for that we need to lay out a red carpet for foreigners, corporations and other privileged entities who would not be immune (nor should they be), but who may have something valuable to contribute, and would like to participate in the economy; as a matter of licensed privilege, and always AT A PRICE.  The state can't exclude or restrict access to anyone with rights, but can determine the price for those who are not immune, and base that price on absolutely any criteria it chooses - because it doesn't affect those who are immune.  

Make the taxes too low and they'll attract privileged activity in droves. That's great for the economy, but not for state revenue without reliance on volume (which, again, can be good for the economy).  But if the state $#@!s up and makes taxes too high, it won't attract economic activity from privileged entities. They can tax or otherwise chase those entities out of existence, but only its own peril, as state revenues would dry up. Meanwhile, those privileged entities which are already in place would suffer as they are out-competed by those with rights, who enjoy the economic advantages *at all times*. So the government shrinks as the windfall goes to those who are at all times free, and who exist and act as a matter of right. 

So free and natural individuals keep a natural check and balance on the state, which keeps a natural check and balance on the privileged entities, which keep a natural check and balance on all the extra goodies that would otherwise not flow into an economy without them.  And all because the focus was shifted away from the false choice of WHAT is taxed, and on what basis, to WHO is taxed versus who is truly free, and why.

----------


## truthspeaker

> "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life."


I love that saying. I'll add another part.

"Teach a man to fish AND COOK and he'll never go hungry." :-D

Actually, my father always says, "Learn to cook and you'll never starve"

----------


## Roy L

> Hardly like ancient Rome.


True: the Roman system made more sense than yours, as the emperor was the biggest landowner, and was thus able to devote considerable land rent to running the empire.



> Nice slippery use of the word "nobles", as ancient Rome had a complex class structure with slaves, freedman and citizens, which further divided the legal status and powers of citizens based on criteria like ancestry, wealth, land and property (including horses and military equipment) already owned.


Nothing slippery about it, stop lying.



> In our case, there would be ZERO distinction amongst real and natural Citizens behaving and existing as a matter of right. They would all be the ONLY nobles in terms of equal inalienable rights, and should, therefore, be free - if not encouraged - to own the best land.


Very true.  But under my system, resident citizens would all have *equal* rights to hold the best land, and landowning would thus be widely dispersed.  Under your system, by contrast, rich, greedy takers would own effectively all the best land, and would thus be empowered to steal a large fraction of GDP from the productive, just as they are now.



> In your case, however, there is ZERO distinguishing of foreigners, corporations, and other entities acting and existing as matter of privilege, from real and natural Citizens.


That's another lie, as only resident citizens would get the UIE.



> That's your fatal flaw, wherein exclusive landholdings are based solely on wealth.


No, that's just another flat-out lie from you, as landholdings would be based solely on payment of the rent, not on wealth.  The wealthy would have far less land than they do now, as it would not be a source of unearned wealth.



> Not true,


Of course it's true.  We're seeing a similar effect in CA under Prop 13, where the virtually total tax exemption for long-time owners means land effectively can't be sold.



> but if that was really the case, then problem solved.


Nonsense.  Having all the good land owned tax-free by rich, greedy parasites was the Roman system, which destroyed the empire.



> However, it wouldn't happen that way.


Of course it would, and that is the intended result, stop lying.



> Entities that exist and behave as a matter of privilege could and would still own good lands.


Nope.  See CA, where companies and deals are structured to retain the property tax exemption for long-term owners -- which are ultimately all going to be corporations, as they don't die.



> They just have to pay the privilege/rental fee in the form of whatever taxes are demanded of them (LVT et al).


Which rich individuals would not have to pay, making the land more valuable to them than to the corporation.  They can therefore bid more for it, and would get it.



> The real difference is that whatever land they did hold would have the equivalent of a burner placed under it, whereas the land owned by real individuals who exist and behave as a matter of inalienable rights would have no such burner underneath theirs.


Right.  You are just too much of an economic ignoramus to understand (or too dishonest to consent to know) that the burners would push all the good land into burner-less individual ownership.



> Your brain-dead assumption is that allodial status would be inherent in the land, which status would somehow be transferable.


No such assumption is made or needed, stop lying.



> That would not be the case. The status of any ownership title would be based on the inherent legal status of owner, which would NOT transfer with the land.  If a Citizen sells a parcel of land to another Citizen, there is no change in the allodial status of the title.  However, if that same parcel of land is *sold* to a privileged entity, like a foreigner or corporation, that _instantly becomes privileged ownership_ based on the new owner's status, and therefore subject to taxes.


And vice versa: sale from a corporation to an individual would remove the taxes.  Result: individuals would own all the good land, just as the tax-exempt nobles did in ancient Rome.



> And, incidentally, you're the one who thinks that rights and/or the economic value thereof should be arrogated, put into abeyance, transferred and sold to the highest bidder, like so many indulgences. Not me. I wouldn't sell my neighbor's soul down the river the way you would for a promised mess of UIE pottage, as if that made it all better.


No, you are just lying again, as usual.  You're the one who purposes to remove people's rights to liberty by force, *without compensation,* and *GIVE* those rights to rich, greedy parasites to trade amongst themselves.  Your system then forces the victims to labor, as slaves, for the unearned profit of those same rich, greedy parasties or starve to death.  It then steals any remaining fruits of their labor in excess of bare subsistence through taxation, and gives the money to the same rich, greedy parasites who already took most of the fruits of their slaves' labor in the form of increased land rents.



> Forcing the state to get its revenues from privileged entities only (foreign and domestic), with no power to tax or otherwise abrogate the rights of free and natural Citizens with whom those privileged entities compete, establishes a self-leveling market dynamic.


No, you are just lying again.  Under your system, the state does not merely abrogate but forcibly *removes* the liberty rights of its citizens and *gives* those rights to rich, greedy parasites to trade amongst themselves.  There is nothing "self-leveling" about it.  The bone you propose to throw people in return for removing their rights to liberty is the "liberty" to buy their liberty rights back from the rich, greedy parasites their rights were given to.  This is most closely analogous to the "liberty" slaves had to save up their wages -- which their owners were taking, ooops -- to buy their liberty from their owners, and then to save up some more money and buy some slaves of their own.



> Your view is, in essence, that people can only be free when they are free to own slaves.
> The limit to the amounts and ways the state can tax its pool of privileged entities would be naturally capped by the threat of competition from the free and natural individuals with whom they compete, but who are not subject to those same regulations and taxes.  The more you tax Walmart, the better it is for Mom & Pop, who incidentally benefit from a tax on their competition, but from which they are forever exempt.  As it is now, Walmart is treated as a legal person with rights, and is actually on BETTER FOOTING with better legal status than Fred, of Fred's Hardware (before it went out of business).


Google "rent seeking behavior" and start reading.



> Fred existed and acted as a matter of right, and should have been free.


No.  Fred had no right to liberty, nor even a right to exist.  Those rights had been forcibly removed and given to landowners.



> He could have passed on his advantages to the community, and remained in business.


In theory; but in practice, people just pocket rent.  They have no reason to pass it on.  That is what makes it rent.



> Walmart, on the other hand, is a mega-corp that exists as a matter of privilege, as a fictitious creation of the state, and should therefore have been the ONLY one subject to taxes and regulatory controls by the state.


Garbage without factual or logical basis.  The Duke of Westminster's ancestors didn't need any corporation to inherit an empire of rent collection privileges.



> What my proposal amounts to is *internal tariffs*, not restricted by type, which are applied EXCLUSIVELY to those with privileged status (e.g., foreigners as well as corporations foreign and domestic) who engage in privileged economic activity, _including landownership_, WITHIN OUR BORDERS.  So it's not the same as an import or export tax, or tariff on goods and services coming from other countries, which are sovereigns just like us, and free to compete.


Your ignorance of economics is comprehensive, because you refuse to know facts that prove you wrong.

[irrelevant, anti-economic garbage snipped] 



> The people are free, to the extent that they exist and act as a matter of right.


The people are not free because landowning forcibly removes their rights without compensation.  You know this.



> Now comes the problem of funding government services, and for that we need to lay out a red carpet for foreigners, corporations and other privileged entities who would not be immune (nor should they be), but who may have something valuable to contribute, and would like to participate in the economy; as a matter of licensed privilege, and always AT A PRICE.  The state can't exclude or restrict access to anyone with rights, but can determine the price for those who are not immune, and base that price on absolutely any criteria it chooses - because it doesn't affect those who are immune.


And on your planet, that might be relevant.  You obviously refuse to know the fact that before corporations existed, people did much the same things as individuals.



> Make the taxes too low and they'll attract privileged activity in droves. That's great for the economy, but not for state revenue without reliance on volume (which, again, can be good for the economy).  But if the state $#@!s up and makes taxes too high, it won't attract economic activity from privileged entities. They can tax or otherwise chase those entities out of existence, but only its own peril, as state revenues would dry up. Meanwhile, those privileged entities which are already in place would suffer as they are out-competed by those with rights, who enjoy the economic advantages *at all times*. So the government shrinks as the windfall goes to those who are at all times free, and who exist and act as a matter of right.


No, all the windfall would go to rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners, as a matter of immutable economic law, because the rights of everyone else to exist and act have been forcibly removed without compensation.



> So free and natural individuals keep a natural check and balance on the state, which keeps a natural check and balance on the privileged entities, which keep a natural check and balance on all the extra goodies that would otherwise not flow into an economy without them.  And all because the focus was shifted away from the false choice of WHAT is taxed, and on what basis, to WHO is taxed versus who is truly free, and why.


Result: feudalism, which was not coincidentally also the result of the ancient Roman system.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> True: the Roman system made more sense than yours, as the emperor was the biggest landowner, and was thus able to devote considerable land rent to running the empire.


Well, at least you're honest about worshiping the Roman system, and wanting a single, centralized emperor landowner.  It's just "the nobles" you have a problem with, even though they were an elite group, and landownership was not available to most of the "free" people of Rome.  The emperor part you like, and want to keep - cuz he cud giv bak to da peephole. 




> But under my system, resident citizens would all have *equal* rights to hold the best land, and landowning would thus be widely dispersed.


Yeah, if by "equal rights to hold" you mean equal rights to make competing bids on perpetual rental payments to the state. Yippee! We are all FREE -- to jump for the same land rent plum Roy wants dangled.  Free at last to jump for that plum!




> ...only resident citizens would get the UIE.


Oh, that absolutely worthless piece of $#@! of a campaign promise? Thanks anyway. I'll pass on your mess of UIE pottage, ya birthright-stealing and auctioning nasty. 




> Landholdings would be based solely on payment of the rent, not on wealth.


Here, let me help you untie that strange knot in your mind, and de-obfuscate a bit for you.  You see, the way it works is, a land value TAX is BASED ON the land rent, but the _means by which that tax is paid_ comes from actual wealth.  The fact that you assume that the source of that wealth will be the land itself is your goofy brain hiccup, but incidental.  You see, the way it works is, not all land is "held" on the basis of production, or producing wealth.  But the tax exists regardless of whether the land is a productive ore-rich mine or a parcel of residential land that produces absolutely nothing for the landholder. The tax must still come from some form of wealth, regardless of where it originated. 

The reason landholdings would be "based on wealth" under your proposed nonsense is the fact that the best lands will go to the highest bidder at all times.  That naturally means that the wealthiest (the greediest takers in your lexicon), which you confuse with "most productive" (on behalf of the state) will hold all the best lands. 




> We're seeing a similar effect in CA under Prop 13, where the virtually total tax exemption for long-time owners means land effectively can't be sold.


Yeah, while moron Emperor Caligula in the legislature is waiting to pounce, given that the property tax rate LEAPS AND FREEZES onto the next buyer. Prop 13 didn't go far enough. 




> Having all the good land owned tax-free by rich, greedy parasites was the Roman system, which destroyed the empire.


Yeah, so let's not repeat that mistake with your system, whereby one SINGLE greedy, bloodsucking parasite feeds off of and encourages other greedy bloodsucking parasites.  We wouldn't want that. 




> See CA, where companies and deals are structured to retain the property tax exemption for long-term owners -- which are ultimately all going to be corporations, as they don't die.


Ah, so you do see the problem with treating corporations as having the same status and rights as real people. And yet your system doesn't seek to change that at all. Instead it would leave that part intact, as it ropes everyone into the same arena with them, and let's them duke it out for the privilege (which you call a "right") to compete head-to-head for the same privileges.  Ya nasty. 




> Which rich individuals would not have to pay..."


Correction: NO individual Citizen would have to pay. Ever. 




> ...making the land more valuable to them than to the corporation.  They can therefore bid more for it, and would get it.


Are you that dumb? Do you really think that individuals with immunity from a privilege tax would make corporations and other privileged entities somehow poor and unable to compete?  In Shanghai there is a negligible tax rate for citizens, and another MUCH LARGER rate for foreigners and outsiders.  Last time I checked Shanghai was chock full of foreign subsidizers of the Shanghai economy. 




> ...the burners would push all the good land into burner-less individual ownership.


Kazzactly.  Isn't that wonderful?  If only. See Shanghai above. 




> sale from a corporation to an individual would remove the taxes.  Result: individuals would own all the good land, just as the tax-exempt nobles did in ancient Rome.


Kazzactly.  Isn't that wonderful?  Not really though. See Shanghai above. 




> No.  Fred had no right to liberty, nor even a right to exist.  Those rights had been forcibly removed and given to landowners.


Fred was a landowner. 

[irrelevant, anti-economic garbage snipped]

----------


## Roy L

> Well, at least you're honest about worshiping the Roman system, and wanting a single, centralized emperor landowner.


Well, at least you're consistent: you always tell stupid lies about what I have plainly written.  While it's true that some Roman emperors were reasonably competent and public-spirited administrators of the empire, (Google "Five Good Emperors" and start reading), there was efffectively zero democratic accountability.  To claim I "worship the Roman system," therefore, ranks as one of the eight or nine thousand stupidest and most dishonest lies you have told in this thread.



> It's just "the nobles" you have a problem with, even though they were an elite group, and landownership was not available to most of the "free" people of Rome.


Lie.  It was just as available to them as it would be to people under your system: for a price.



> The emperor part you like, and want to keep - cuz he cud giv bak to da peephole.


No, that's just another stupid lie from you, as proved above.  



> Yeah, if by "equal rights to hold" you mean equal rights to make competing bids on perpetual rental payments to the state.


Which actually IS equality: the equality of equal standing in the free market.

Your absurd, self-contradictory, and deeply dishonest notion of "equality," by contrast, is where producers must pay privileged parasites for the opportunity to exercise their rights to liberty.



> Yippee! We are all FREE -- to jump for the same land rent plum Roy wants dangled.  Free at last to jump for that plum!


Stupid, dishonest, evil filth.



> Oh, that absolutely worthless piece of $#@! of a campaign promise?


No, that integral component of the proposed solution.  Claiming that some other system will be implemented instead of the proposed one is not an argument.  It's just stupid, dishonest, evil filth.  You could with equal "logic" say, "Oh, you mean your LVT + UIE plan to get government revenue by kidnapping all the blonde, 12-year-old girls and sell them as sex slaves in Pakistan?"  It's just stupid, dishonest, evil filth.



> Thanks anyway. I'll pass on your mess of UIE pottage, ya birthright-stealing and auctioning nasty.


Un.  $#@!ing.  Believable.

It is *LANDOWNING* that *REALLY DOES LITERALLY STEAL* people's birthrights, and *GIVE* them to rich, greedy, parasitic landowners *WITHOUT* giving the victims even a mess of pottage to keep from starving to death.

The rich resources of the English language are inadequate to the task of expressing just how stupid, evil, dishonest, hypocritical, despicable, nauseating and disgraceful your lies are.



> Here, let me help you untie that strange knot in your mind, and de-obfuscate a bit for you.


<yawn>  You will now try to obfuscate what I have made clear, self-evident and indisputable.



> You see, the way it works is, a land value TAX is BASED ON the land rent, but the _means by which that tax is paid_ comes from actual wealth.


That is correct: it is the actual wealth that the landowner would otherwise be pocketing in return for nothing.



> The fact that you assume that the source of that wealth will be the land itself is your goofy brain hiccup, but incidental.


There is no such assumption, stop lying.  The FACT is that the source of that wealth is the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location.  Those are the advantages that make the producer's efforts and capital goods more productive at that location, by the exact amount of the rent, than at a location that yields no rent.

You just have to refuse to know that fact.



> You see, the way it works is, not all land is "held" on the basis of production, or producing wealth.


Right: under the current -- and your proposed -- system, evil, greedy parasites forcibly deprive others of their liberty to use the land in order to extract wealth from the productive without contributing anything to production or producing any wealth in return.



> But the tax exists regardless of whether the land is a productive ore-rich mine or a parcel of residential land that produces absolutely nothing for the landholder.


Correct.  If residential land is occupied, then it is being used to produce accommodation, just as if it held a hotel or apartment building.  The fact that the producer of the accommodation might also be consuming it is utterly irrelevant (he would otherwise be paying someone else for producing a place for him to live), just as it is irrelevant that a subsistence farmer might be consuming what he produces.  If it is *not* occupied, then it does indeed produce absolutely nothing for the landholder, or for anyone else.  The landholder is in that case merely depriving others of it and getting nothing himself, as a pure, evil dog in the manger whose only motive is malice.

That, of course, is the ideal that you worship and demand be enabled.

And it is deeply, irredeemably evil.



> The tax must still come from some form of wealth, regardless of where it originated.
> 
> The reason landholdings would be "based on wealth" under your proposed nonsense is the fact that the best lands will go to the highest bidder at all times.


Non sequitur fallacy.  Under the LVT + UIE system, the wealthy have no REASON to bid for land they are not going to use productively.  It just becomes a source of tax liability for them, not a source of unearned wealth.  Unlike under your evil system.



> That naturally means that the wealthiest (the greediest takers in your lexicon),


No, you are just lying again.  Unlike under the current system, the wealthiest under the LVT + UIE system *would be* the most productive.  It is under the current -- and your proposed -- system that they are merely the greediest takers.



> which you confuse with "most productive" (on behalf of the state) will hold all the best lands.


No, that's a lie.  You are just lying.  It is under the CURRENT -- and your -- system that the wealthiest are just greedy takers and not the most productive.  Under LVT + UIE, there is no way to get significant wealth without producing it, so the wealthiest ARE the most productive.

But more to the point, your claim that with LVT + UIE the wealthiest would have to be the highest bidders for all the best land is *also* a flat-out lie.  They would have no REASON to bid for land they were not going to use productively, and as holding even the best land would not net them any economic advantage (unlike under the current and your system), they would not want to hold any more of it than they were confident they could use more productively than competing bidders.

Everything you say on this subject is the opposite of the truth.



> Yeah, while moron Emperor Caligula in the legislature is waiting to pounce, given that the property tax rate LEAPS AND FREEZES onto the next buyer. Prop 13 didn't go far enough.


<yawn>  You merely prove your ignorance of economics again.  Prop 13 means that land worth $1M to a buyer might be worth $2M to the long-time owner.  If Prop 13 "went far enough" for you and abolished property taxes altogether, and the land were consequently also worth $2M to the buyer, that wouldn't make it any more affordable to him or anyone else.  It would simply mean that the welfare subsidy giveaway to the long-time owner would be extended to a new buyer as well.



> Yeah, so let's not repeat that mistake with your system, whereby one SINGLE greedy, bloodsucking parasite feeds off of and encourages other greedy bloodsucking parasites.  We wouldn't want that.


Absurdity.  You again simply refuse to know the fact that land's value COMES FROM government and the community, not the private landowner, and they therefore CANNOT be parasites, unlike the private landowner who is always a parasite.



> Ah, so you do see the problem with treating corporations as having the same status and rights as real people. And yet your system doesn't seek to change that at all.


Correct.  Trying to fix everything that is wrong with the current system at once would be impossibly complicated.  You can't -- or more accurately, won't -- even understand the simple, obvious solution to the most basic and significant problem.  I'm proposing a change of diet that would cure obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, anorexia, and a host of other ills, and you are complaining that it doesn't do anything about bullet wounds, car accidents or drowning.



> Instead it would leave that part intact, as it ropes everyone into the same arena with them, and let's them duke it out for the privilege (which you call a "right") to compete head-to-head for the same privileges.  Ya nasty.


Despicably dishonest filth.  Corporate privilege is a separate issue and you know it.



> Correction: NO individual Citizen would have to pay. Ever.


Wrong, obviously.  They would merely have to pay in advance, and to a parasitic private landowner rather than to the community that produced the value, as under the current system.



> Are you that dumb?


I don't need to ask if you are that dishonest.



> Do you really think that individuals with immunity from a privilege tax would make corporations and other privileged entities somehow poor and unable to compete?


They would make them UNLIKELY to compete for ownership of LAND.



> In Shanghai there is a negligible tax rate for citizens, and another MUCH LARGER rate for foreigners and outsiders.  Last time I checked Shanghai was chock full of foreign subsidizers of the Shanghai economy.


LOL!  Careful: there is no private landowning in Shanghai...



> Kazzactly.  Isn't that wonderful?  If only.


What would be wonderful about it?  The rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic rich would just pocket publicly created land rent directly, by owning the land, rather than indirectly, by owning the corporations that own it.



> See Shanghai above.


See feudalism, which is the predictable end result.



> Kazzactly.  Isn't that wonderful?  Not really though. See Shanghai above.


Yes, really.  See feudalism.



> Fred was a landowner.


So he managed to toil and produce enough to pay a greedy, parasitic landowner for a small portion of his (and everyone else's) right to liberty.  So instead of being just a slave, he now owns some shares in millions of other slaves.  How wonderful.

----------


## Steven Douglas

OK, human enslaving Land Marxist, just wanted to clarify, thanks.

----------


## Philmanoman

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandCafe/message/11583

Anyone else think this is funny?

----------


## Origanalist

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandCafe/message/11583
> 
> Anyone else think this is funny?


How in the world did you find *that*?

----------


## Kluge

> How in the world did you find *that*?


Intriguing.

http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Achenbaum_EmDo.html

----------


## Origanalist

> Intriguing.
> 
> http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Achenbaum_EmDo.html


Akk...................




> because democracy alone is not enough to produce widely shared prosperity





> I am sympathetic to those who want to occupy their homes forever, but if those homes are located on land that is valuable (because of its views or water access or transportation services, for example) or becomes valuable because of surrounding development, it seems fair that they compensate the rest of us for holding up progress, for continuing to occupy as single-family residences, land which it is now time to develop into something that produces good results for the entire community.





> Our land, particularly the best-located land, is a common asset on which we are all dependent. *Allowing* individuals or corporations to occupy it without compensating the rest of us for its value is the underlying problem, and solving that problem through good assessment and rational (that is, land value) taxes is the way to solve it. When we do that, a lot of problems will begin to fall away.


Holy collectivist claptrap batman! Sacrifice for the good of the state comrade, the land belongs to all.

----------


## Philmanoman

How in the world did you find that?




By accident mostly heheh.

----------


## Kluge

> Akk...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy collectivist claptrap batman! Sacrifice for the good of the state comrade, the land belongs to all.


I find it peculiar that these extremists seem to think that an RP message board might yield new support for their ridiculous cult.

----------


## MelissaWV

The fight to "eliminate poverty" is counterproductive.  The drive should be to eliminate static/legacy poverty.  There are now families who are on their 3rd or 4th generation seeing welfare as an income, and the skills associated with milking the system for all it's worth as the only ones they'll ever need.  A perfect society does not prevent people from making the mistakes that land them in poverty for awhile --- nor does it strip away the "punishment" of living in an embarrassing series of situations where you have to beg or borrow.  It does, however, give rise to charities that will provide training, job placement, daycare, food, shelter, vouchers for transportation, money to prevent the turning off of vital utilities, and so on.

----------


## Origanalist

> I find it peculiar that these extremists seem to think that an RP message board might yield new support for their ridiculous cult.


I think it's obvious most of us are willing to consider things outside of mainstream thought. I gave them a twice over before I rejected them outright, but the more they posted, the more it became obvious they were just as you suggested.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I think it's obvious most of us are willing to consider things outside of mainstream thought. I gave them a twice over before I rejected them outright, but the more they posted, the more it became obvious they were just as you suggested.


It is amazing that many think a simple tax shift is some form Communism or wherever their wayward minds take them.  Amazing indeed.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Holy collectivist claptrap batman! Sacrifice for the good of the state comrade, the land belongs to all.


A tax shift is collectivism?  What universe are you in black shirt?

You need to understand what is *private wealth* and *Common wealth*.  You, and others, are very confused indeed.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I find it peculiar that these extremists seem to think that an RP message board might yield new support for their ridiculous cult.


Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc are run by cults?  Wow! Such hard of thinkingness.   Keep em commin'.

----------


## Origanalist

> A tax shift is collectivism?  What universe are you in black shirt?
> 
> You need to understand what is *private wealth* and *Common wealth*.  You, and others, are very confused indeed.


Just because I don't accept your premise doesn't mean I'm confused, you're just confused because I don't accept it.

----------


## MelissaWV

Common wealth... public property... greater good... 

They are all lofty and lovely concepts that fail when you realize the person with the most influence gets to decide what constitutes the common wealth, public property, and greater good.

----------


## Roy L

> Common wealth... public property... greater good... 
> 
> They are all lofty and lovely concepts that fail when you realize the person with the most influence gets to decide what constitutes the common wealth, public property, and greater good.


In a dictatorship.  We don't live in a dictatorship.  Duh.

----------


## Roy L

> I think it's obvious most of us are willing to consider things outside of mainstream thought. I gave them a twice over before I rejected them outright, but the more they posted, the more it became obvious they were just as you suggested.


But oddly enough, you couldn't refute what we said.

----------


## MelissaWV

> In a dictatorship.  We don't live in a dictatorship.  Duh.


Not only a dictator makes those decisions on others' behalf.

Lobbyists, politicians, popular corporations... all of them can and do bend the rules in their favor.

"Duh."

----------


## Roy L

> The fight to "eliminate poverty" is counterproductive.


Correction: most of the methods used are counterproductive.



> The drive should be to eliminate static/legacy poverty.


The drive should be to eliminate the *unjust* poverty caused by the forcible removal of people's rights without just compensation.



> There are now families who are on their 3rd or 4th generation seeing welfare as an income, and the skills associated with milking the system for all it's worth as the only ones they'll ever need.


Right, because welfare is charity, and what people need is not charity but justice, and the liberty to access opportunity.



> A perfect society does not prevent people from making the mistakes that land them in poverty for awhile --- nor does it strip away the "punishment" of living in an embarrassing series of situations where you have to beg or borrow.  It does, however, give rise to charities that will provide training, job placement, daycare, food, shelter, vouchers for transportation, money to prevent the turning off of vital utilities, and so on.


Yeah, everything but restoration of the equal human rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor...

----------


## Roy L

> Sacrifice for the good of the state comrade,


No, just stop sacrificing others for your own greed.



> the land belongs to all.


The land _rightly_ belongs to no one.  How could it?  Owning land inherently removes a portion of others' rights to liberty.

----------


## Roy L

> Just because I don't accept your premise doesn't mean I'm confused, you're just confused because I don't accept it.


I challenge you to identify the premise you claim we hold, but you don't accept.

----------


## Roy L

> Not only a dictator makes those decisions on others' behalf.


But only a dictator could be "the" person with the most influence whom you claimed was doing so.



> Lobbyists, politicians, popular corporations... all of them can and do bend the rules in their favor.
> 
> "Duh."


Certainly, but they are not one person, and they bend the rules using democratic processes and institutions, not just their own say-so.  They do it by influencing others' beliefs and behavior, just as you and I are trying to do by posting in this forum.

Duh.

----------


## Roy L

> I find it peculiar that these extremists seem to think that an RP message board


??  How ironic.  You think the MSM, the Republican power brokers, etc. don't consider Ron Paul an "extremist"?



> might yield new support for their ridiculous cult.


<yawn>  A "ridiculous cult" that Milton Friedman and many other extremely wise and intelligent supporters of liberty, justice and economic efficiency have also supported:

"In my view the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago." -- Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in Economics

----------


## Steven Douglas

> But only a dictator could be "the" person with the most influence whom you claimed was doing so.


Tyranny of the Royjority. Duh.

----------


## Origanalist

> I challenge you to identify the premise you claim we hold, but you don't accept.


Pretty tough to accept a challenge when your not on line Royyyyyyy.

 I don't accept the premise that the system you advocate installing will be any more fair or any less prone to abuses by the people administering said system than already occurs. In fact it seems to me to do just the opposite. It would strip people of the property they worked so hard to acquire all for the 'greater good' and 'progress'.

Who cares if you worked fourty years to attain the title to that land? Your in the way of our collective utopia, begone you evil hoarder!

----------


## Roy L

> Pretty tough to accept a challenge when your not on line Royyyyyyy.


Why would it matter?  This isn't a chat room.



> I don't accept the premise that the system you advocate installing will be any more fair or any less prone to abuses by the people administering said system than already occurs.


That's not a premise, it's a conclusion we have proved based on known facts of economics:

1. It will be more fair because it recovers *publicly created* value for public purposes and benefit rather than giving it away to landowners in return for nothing and then stealing privately created value to pay for that welfare subsidy giveaway.
2. It will be less prone to abuse because it is not trying to do two opposite things at once, and is entirely transparent: there is no secrecy involved, so everyone can check everything for themselves.



> In fact it seems to me to do just the opposite. It would strip people of the property they worked so hard to acquire all for the 'greater good' and 'progress'.


It would not strip anyone of rightful property, only of PRIVILEGE, just as emancipation of slaves did, and for the same reasons.



> Who cares if you worked fourty years to attain the title to that land? Your in the way of our collective utopia, begone you evil hoarder!


No, you're in the way of others' *individual* rights to liberty, just as slave owners were.  Injustice is still injustice, no matter how hard you have worked to place yourself in a position to profit by it.  Sad but true.

----------


## redbluepill

> I find it peculiar that these extremists seem to think that an RP message board might yield new support for their ridiculous cult.


I find it peculiar that posters on a Ron Paul message board are using the word 'extremist' in a negative tone.

If you mean extremist as in we support the ideals of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Frank Chodorov, and Albert Jay Nock then I guess we're 'extremist' lol.

----------


## redbluepill

> I gave them a twice over before I rejected them outright, but the more they posted, the more it became obvious they were just as you suggested.


You do know Ron Paul supporters are regularly accused of acting like a cult at times. As a Paul supporter I tend to agree.

----------


## Origanalist

> No, you're in the way of others' individual rights to liberty, just as slave owners were. Injustice is still injustice, no matter how hard you have worked to place yourself in a position to profit by it. Sad but true.


So my mother who has been in her house since 1975 and has long since paid it off has no expectation to keep that property and dispose of it as she wishes. She has no right to the equity in that property. It belongs to everybody. 

Tell me Roy, do you own any property? Have you invested years of your life to acquire any property? Have you spent years building a business? Have you done anything outside of the realm of academia and study?

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Tell me Roy, do you own any property? Have you invested years of your life to acquire any property? Have you spent years building a business? Have you done anything outside of the realm of academia and study?


Roy is a zealous, dogmatic ideologue, who has very much cast himself in the spirit and image of Henry George, especially in terms of style, approach, and intolerance to anyone's ideas except his own.  Roy was described back in 1917 by a Georgist sympathizer named Charles B. Fillebrown, who wrote a critique entitled "Henry George and the Economists". SOURCE In it he quoted a letter from a Swarthmore professor who described the typical Single Taxer. 

Now tell me this doesn't bear an uncanny resemblance to LVT proponents (especially Roy):

*TYPICAL SINGLE TAXER:* 


> ...generally a man of intolerably dogmatic and doctrinaire spirit, driving erstwhile sympathizers away from wearing the label single taxer, lest the inference be drawn by the public that, because they believe in the single tax, they are no longer free to believe in anything else.


More from that piece: (emphasis mine)




> A modern-day follower of George has likened his attitude to what Sir Basil Liddell-Hart called _the martyr character_, in contrast to the strategist. *The martyrs lot is to declare what is right for the world to hear without softening the message*, and typically to suffer the consequences, almost reveling in rejection by the vested interests. The strategists task is to get measures implemented. *George selected followers whose tactics emulated his spirit of martyrdom rather than developing alliances*.


Talk about spot-on. As a strategist, I can't imagine having a better ally in the fight against LVT than Roy L. - Eco-Warrier is a big help as well.  They are pure people repellent, self-defeating poison to their own cause.  You see it every time they call someone a liar, or refusing to know facts, or not knowing any economics.  You see it come out as so many toads, locusts, and every other creepy crawly thing spewed from Roy when he denounces every objection to LVT as lies, or "evil, despicable filth".

----------


## Origanalist

@ Steven Douglas, there is a poster calling himself redbluepill that is advocating LVT that is quite civil and actually has me considering some of what he is proposing.

People like Roy L. should not be permitted anywhere near positions of power over other peoples lives. There is no difference between him and the progressives in the schools who have never had kids telling parents they know what's best for their kids so shut up and sit down.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> @ Steven Douglas, there is a poster calling himself redbluepill that is advocating LVT that is quite civil and actually has me considering some of what he is proposing.


While I don't agree with all of redbluepill's premises or conclusions, s/he is actually one of the few who will actually discuss it rationally (rpwi is another), rather than attempt to ram it down your throat by rote, like some bible-bashing, hell-fire and brimstone evangelist on a militant crusade.  




> People like Roy L. should not be permitted anywhere near positions of power over other peoples lives. There is no difference between him and the progressives in the schools who have never had kids telling parents they know what's best for their kids so shut up and sit down.


Yep, virtually no difference.

----------


## redbluepill

> People like Roy L. should not be permitted anywhere near positions of power over other peoples lives.


I would vote for him in a heartbeat. He proposes the elimination of all taxes except one. Not even Ron Paul goes that far.





> There is no difference between him and the progressives in the schools who have never had kids telling parents they know what's best for their kids so shut up and sit down.


His views have been promoted by classical liberals throughout history from the laissez-faire economists in France to Thomas Paine to Albert Jay Nock

----------


## angelatc

> Own the lake, and _you_ eat for the rest of your life...


Nobody owns the lake, and the lake gets fished out.

----------


## Origanalist

> I would vote for him in a heartbeat. He proposes the elimination of all taxes except one. Not even Ron Paul goes that far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His views have been promoted by classical liberals throughout history from the laissez-faire economists in France to Thomas Paine to Albert Jay Nock


The problem is he doesn't promote them, he rams them down your throat with all the gusto of a tyrant. Sane people tend to distance themselves from such as he.

----------


## Roy L

> So my mother who has been in her house since 1975 and has long since paid it off


She has *not* paid off the *land*, as her possession of it is an ongoing burden on the community and an ongoing violation of others' rights.



> has no expectation to keep that property and dispose of it as she wishes.


She can keep what is rightly her property -- the improvements -- and dispose of them as she wishes.  She can keep the land as long as she makes just compensation for what she is taking from others, and dispose of it as she wishes within the framework of legally permitted uses.



> She has no right to the equity in that property.


She has a right to the equity in the part that IS rightly property: the improvements.



> It belongs to everybody.


The improvements belong to her.  The land belongs to no one.  Government administers its possession and use in trust for all who have a right to use it because that is government's JOB.  I have explained this many times, but you just keep chanting the same strawman fallacies.



> Tell me Roy, do you own any property? Have you invested years of your life to acquire any property?


I have been a landlord in the past, but do not own now as I still consider it too risky in my area.



> Have you spent years building a business?


I have been self-employed for over 20 years, and have at various times worked for large and small businesses, NGOs, and governments.  That is how I know the typical "meeza hatesa gubmint" wheeze is just uninformed and dishonest garbage.



> Have you done anything outside of the realm of academia and study?


I have also led volunteer organizations, and spent enough time in political trenches on both the right and left to be disillusioned with both.

----------


## redbluepill

> @ Steven Douglas, there is a poster calling himself redbluepill that is advocating LVT that is quite civil and actually has me considering some of what he is proposing.


If you think I'm civil here you should see me debate statists on the merits of the Drug War or War on Terror lol.

----------


## Origanalist

> She has *not* paid off the *land*, as her possession of it is an ongoing burden on the community and an ongoing violation of others' rights.
> 
> She can keep what is rightly her property -- the improvements -- and dispose of them as she wishes.  She can keep the land as long as she makes just compensation for what she is taking from others, and dispose of it as she wishes within the framework of legally permitted uses.
> 
> She has a right to the equity in the part that IS rightly property: the improvements.
> 
> The improvements belong to her.  The land belongs to no one.  Government administers its possession and use in trust for all who have a right to use it because that is government's JOB.  I have explained this many times, but you just keep chanting the same strawman fallacies.
> 
> I have been a landlord in the past, but do not own now as I still consider it too risky in my area.
> ...


I am so done with this, consider me as opposed.

----------


## Roy L

> Nobody owns the lake, and the lake gets fished out.


Wrong.  If the lake is owned by no one, but its use is administered to safeguard the equal rights of all to use it, the fishery is sustainable.  Consider the earth's atmosphere.  No one owns it, but governments administer its use in trust for all so that private interests can't just dump poisons into it.  Result: everyone can still use it to breathe.  Many fisheries all over the world are publicly administered in similar ways, and made sustainable by limiting the catch, by stopping water pollution, etc.  Please try to find a willingness to know these facts.

----------


## Roy L

> The problem is he doesn't promote them, he rams them down your throat with all the gusto of a tyrant. Sane people tend to distance themselves from such as he.


I am perfectly willing to discuss the matter politely and answer honest and civil questions honestly and civilly.  It is the other side that will not discuss the matter honestly and civilly, and always -- and usually immediately -- resorts to despicable accusations and lies about what I have plainly written.

----------


## redbluepill

> The problem is he doesn't promote them, he rams them down your throat with all the gusto of a tyrant. Sane people tend to distance themselves from such as he.


As libertarians I think we all understand how passionate we get when it comes to our rights. But I understand how such heated debate can be a turn off.

If you want to check it out there's an LVT group on Facebook where both Geoists and some non-Geoists post and debate civilly (90% of the time) over its merits. Lots of great economic info/articles posted there too.

----------


## angelatc

> Wrong.  If the lake is owned by no one, but its use is administered to safeguard the equal rights of all to use it, the fishery is sustainable.  Consider the earth's atmosphere.  No one owns it, but governments administer its use in trust for all so that private interests can't just dump poisons into it.  Result: everyone can still use it to breathe.  Many fisheries all over the world are publicly administered in similar ways, and made sustainable by limiting the catch, by stopping water pollution, etc.  Please try to find a willingness to know these facts.


LOL - yes, the rights to fish will be administered by a council of ungreedy superhumans who will act selflessly and perfectly at all times. Please find a willingness to face reality - those people do not exist, have never existed, and will never exist.  

Another newsflash - governments issue permits allowing corporations permission to dump all sorts of toxins in the air, every day.

Another point - the fact that the government had to regulate fishing but not, say beef production, speaks volumes towards private property ownership. I've never seen a farmer sell every single calf in the veal market no matter how high the price was.

Our Founding Fathers removed the right to property from their early proposals, and I'm perfectly comfortable with that.  Land should all be privately owned, nothing should belong to a collective, and there is no such thing as commonwealth.

----------


## Roy L

> While I don't agree with all of redbluepill's premises or conclusions, s/he is actually one of the few who will actually discuss it rationally (rpwi is another), rather than attempt to ram it down your throat by rote, like some bible-bashing, hell-fire and brimstone evangelist on a militant crusade.


I suggest considering the parallel with abolition of slavery.  Was it accomplished by judiciously discussing the matter as if slavery and employment for wages were morally equivalent?  Were slaves emancipated by respecting the slave owners'  viewpoints, and not offending them by identifying the fact that forcibly removing others' rights without just compensation is evil?

----------


## angelatc

> I suggest considering the parallel with abolition of slavery.  Was it accomplished by judiciously discussing the matter as if slavery and employment for wages were morally equivalent?  Were slaves emancipated by respecting the slave owners'  viewpoints, and not offending them by identifying the fact that forcibly removing others' rights without just compensation is evil?


In which country?

----------


## Origanalist

> As libertarians I think we all understand how passionate we get when it comes to our rights. But I understand how such heated debate can be a turn off.
> 
> If you want to check it out there's an LVT group on Facebook where both Geoists and some non-Geoists post and debate civilly (90% of the time) over its merits. Lots of great economic info/articles posted there too.


Thanks for that. I don't facebook, but it sounds interesting. I used to have a ghost account there, maybe I'll try that.

----------


## Seraphim

Shush you, with your logic and reality based reason.






> LOL - yes, the rights to fish will be administered by a council of ungreedy superhumans who will act selflessly and perfectly at all times. Please find a willingness to face reality - those people do not exist, have never existed, and will never exist.  
> 
> Another newsflash - governments issue permits allowing corporations permission to dump all sorts of toxins in the air, every day.
> 
> Another point - the fact that the government had to regulate fishing but not, say beef production, speaks volumes towards private property ownership. I've never seen a farmer sell every single calf in the veal market no matter how high the price was.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers removed the right to property from their early proposals, and I'm perfectly comfortable with that.  Land should all be privately owned, nothing should belong to a collective, and there is no such thing as commonwealth.

----------


## Kluge

If RoyL is itching so much to kick old people out of their homes, he ought to go ahead and occupy himself by trying to do just that. It'll be him living his dream.

And I, in turn, will look forward to the day when he gets kicked out of his home by some $#@! annabe thief like himself who takes from people weaker than himself.

----------


## Roy L

> LOL - yes, the rights to fish will be administered by a council of ungreedy superhumans who will act selflessly and perfectly at all times.


Why even bother with such stupid, dishonest nonsense?  You just *refuse to know* the fact that fisheries all over the world *are in fact* administered by quite ordinary people doing jobs they are held accountable for doing.  Do they make mistakes?  Of course.  People are not perfect.  Private owners of resources make mistakes all the time, too.  So what?  Why is it that only public administrators are required to be perfect and never make mistakes?

See what I mean about stupid, dishonest, "meeza hatesa gubmint" crap?



> Please find a willingness to face reality - those people do not exist, have never existed, and will never exist.


Please find a willingness to face reality: no one said they did, and only a stupid, evil, lying sack of $#!+ would claim their absence somehow renders public administration of common resources in the public interest impossible.



> Another newsflash - governments issue permits allowing corporations permission to dump all sorts of toxins in the air, every day.


Yes, because they are administering the resource in the public interest, which means weighing the economic benefits of different uses against the resulting effects on everyone else's ability to use it.  It takes knowledge, effort and expertise to administer a resource competently, and integrity to do it honestly.  SO WHAT?  "Competent" is not the same as "perfect," and "honest" is not the same as "divine."

Nature also dumps all sorts of toxins into the air, from volcanic emissions to hydrogen sulfide from natural gas seeps to plants' natural insecticides.  SO WHAT?  An honest, competent public administrator of the resource recognizes that the earth's atmosphere has an ability to cleanse itself, and SOME amount of toxic emissions will therefore not compromise others' use of the resource.

You just have to refuse to know such facts.



> Our Founding Fathers removed the right to property from their early proposals, and I'm perfectly comfortable with that.


Because they understood that property can be wrongful.



> Land should all be privately owned, nothing should belong to a collective, and there is no such thing as commonwealth.


Because you *feel* and *believe* things should be that way, just as slave owners *felt* and *believed* that their nigras should be their property.

----------


## Roy L

> In which country?


In any country.

----------


## MelissaWV

It's dismaying to come back a full day later and see so many fellow RPFers dangling on the line.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I suggest considering the parallel with abolition of slavery.


I have, and I do see a parallel -- between the prevention of unqualified LVT and the abolition of slavery, not private landownership and slavery, all your geo-gibberish about "forcibly removing others' rights without just compensation" notwithstanding.  Because your mantra is LVT FIRST AND ALL ELSE WILL FOLLOW, your failure to distinguish between the real slaveowners and the slaves does little more than make sharecroppers out of anyone who hasn't the resources to compete with plantation owners. And your UIE is no more "just compensation" than space allocated for a slave shack on a plantation.   




> Excerpts from Henry George's Political Critics by Michael Hudson
>  (PDF file)
> 
> By associating land and its rent with landlords as a distinct class best personified by British landlords, for instance, George downplayed the rents accruing on land owned by working families and commercial businesses.  (no differently than you, Roy)
> 
> His followers still might have demonstrated the degree to which rent is concentrated in the hands of the super-rich, polarizing the economy to favor large absentee owners and monopolists. But they undertook no statistical research. Their silence has enabled property interests to make a populist appeal to consumers in their role as homeowners to support a general reduction of real estate taxes.
> 
> Meanwhile, the role of ground rent in economic theory and social reform was waning. This was partly because America’s “economy of abundance” stood in sharp contrast to the class barriers that concentrated ground rent in the hands of Britain’s hereditary aristocracy. Upward mobility enabled workers to own their homes and even become small businessmen and property owners. Patten explained that American homeowners benefited from the rental value of their property just as did large landowners. Rent was becoming democratized rather than being an economic gain restricted to a distinct class.
> 
> ...

----------


## Roy L

> Roy is a zealous, dogmatic ideologue, who has very much cast himself in the spirit and image of Henry George, especially in terms of style, approach, and intolerance to anyone's ideas except his own.


Actually, I first learned about Henry George when someone on a Usenet newsgroup called me "a modern day Henry George."



> As a strategist, I can't imagine having a better ally in the fight against LVT than Roy L. - Eco-Warrier is a big help as well.  They are pure people repellent, self-defeating poison to their own cause.  You see it every time they call someone a liar, or refusing to know facts, or not knowing any economics.  You see it come out as so many toads, locusts, and every other creepy crawly thing spewed from Roy when he denounces every objection to LVT as lies, or "evil, despicable filth".


IMO it is very difficult to say what will be effective in changing public policy and what will not, especially in the long run.  For example, Pittsburgh used LVT with great success for decades after a long and arduous campaign of education, compromise, politicking, schmoozing, coalition building, salesmanship, fund-raising, etc., etc.  Just the kind of thing you claim would make my efforts more effective.  And maybe you are right, I don't know.  But because the people of Pittsburgh did not really understand LVT, it was repealed when a private contractor brought in to replace the public assessors screwed up the assessments.  They blamed LVT for it when LVT had nothing to do with it, and the politically "effective" coalition builders who had got LVT implemented couldn't save it.  The same sort of thing has happened throughout history: LVT has reliably created economic booms and great civilizations, from ancient Egypt to modern Taiwan; but because the people administering it did not really understand it, they have gradually compromised and abandoned it, and consequently destroyed their societies.

My purpose here and on other forums is to make sure the case for LVT is absolutely bullet-proof, and that means provoking and demolishing every conceivable objection.  I have had people thank me for relentlessly identifying the fact that they were lying because they were not consciously aware of it.  Also, IMO people love to watch a fight, and there are many lurkers on these threads who have seen me wipe the floor with LVT opponents over and over again.  That will plant a seed in their minds.

----------


## Roy L

> It's dismaying to come back a full day later and see so many fellow RPFers dangling on the line.


Why?  This is the most important active thread on the forum, as it is the only active thread where the central issue of public policy in all capitalist countries -- the inherent, growing, and unsustainable government subsidy to landowners -- is being addressed.

----------


## Roy L

> I am so done with this, consider me as opposed.


But without any factual or logical reason.  Check.

----------


## Roy L

> Shush you, with your logic and reality based reason.


Will you even bother to read my conclusive demolition of her "reality based reason"?

----------


## Roy L

> Another point - the fact that the government had to regulate fishing but not, say beef production, speaks volumes towards private property ownership.


It does indeed.  They are merely volumes that you refuse to hear.

The fish are not products of anyone's labor, and are therefore not rightly anyone's property until they are caught.  The cattle are products of someone's labor, and are therefore rightly their property.

Are you willing to know these facts?



> I've never seen a farmer sell every single calf in the veal market no matter how high the price was.


Then you haven't spent much time observing such markets.  It mostly happens when prices are *low*, not high, because the farmer is getting out of the business.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> My purpose here and on other forums is to make sure the case for LVT is absolutely bullet-proof, and that means provoking and demolishing every conceivable objection.  I have had people thank me for relentlessly identifying the fact that they were lying because they were not consciously aware of it.  Also, IMO people love to watch a fight, and there are many lurkers on these threads who have seen me wipe the floor with LVT opponents over and over again.  That will plant a seed in their minds.


That's the spirit, Don Quixote!  Keep demolishing those windmills...er, dragons...you modern day Henry George, you! Yeah, we have all seen what you use to "wipe the floor" with. As you were, comrade, and keep those self-declared those victories coming.  People need to finally realize the part that individual homeownership plays in the poverty, enslavement and deaths of millions upon millions every year, so keep throwing out that vinegar, as those evil bees need to learn!

----------


## Roy L

> If RoyL is itching so much to kick old people out of their homes,


See?  You have to lie.  You have no choice.



> he ought to go ahead and occupy himself by trying to do just that. It'll be him living his dream.
> 
> And I, in turn, will look forward to the day when he gets kicked out of his home by some $#@! annabe thief like himself who takes from people weaker than himself.


Despicable.  Reasonable people understand that if they can't afford to pay for what they are taking, they need to seek alternatives better suited to their needs and means.

I strongly suspect that ACTUAL old people would gladly give up their landowning privilege to free their children and grandchildren from life-long rent, tax and mortgage servitude to rich, greedy parasites.  I know I would.

----------


## Roy L

> People need to finally realize the part that individual homeownership plays in the poverty, enslavement and deaths of millions upon millions every year,


You always have to lie about what I have plainly written.  ALWAYS.  It is LANDownership, not HOMEownership, that impoverishes and enslaves billions, and *kills* millions of innocent people every year.  HOMEownership would be FAR EASIER AND MORE AFFORDABLE if people didn't have to buy a ticket on the landowners' escalator in order to buy a home.  You know this.  You just deliberately decided to lie about it.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> People need to finally realize the part that individual homeownership plays in the poverty, enslavement and deaths of millions upon millions every year,
> 			
> 		
> 
> You always have to lie about what I have plainly written. ALWAYS. It is LANDownership, not HOMEownership, that impoverishes and enslaves billions, and kills millions of innocent people every year. HOMEownership would be FAR EASIER AND MORE AFFORDABLE if people didn't have to buy a ticket on the landowners' escalator in order to buy a home. You know this. You just deliberately decided to lie about it. You always have to lie about what I have plainly written.  ALWAYS.  It is LANDownership, not HOMEownership, that impoverishes and enslaves billions, and *kills* millions of innocent people every year.  HOMEownership would be FAR EASIER AND MORE AFFORDABLE if people didn't have to buy a ticket on the landowners' escalator in order to buy a home.  You know this.  You just deliberately decided to lie about it.


Got my mind right, boss!  People need to finally realize the part that individual landownership (of the land beneath their homes) plays in the poverty and enslavement of billions, and deaths of millions upon millions of innocent people every year.

----------


## redbluepill

> It's dismaying to come back a full day later and see so many fellow RPFers dangling on the line.


Its called enlightenment. ;-)

----------


## MelissaWV

> Its called enlightenment. ;-)


Not you... but certain others.

I could post that the sky is not plaid, and it would lead to a pretty impressive twisting of words by some of the folks in this thread.

----------


## redbluepill

double post

----------


## redbluepill

> H. G. Wells worried that a full land tax would lead to much larger government. He wrote in his autobiography that he had picked up a copy of Progress and Poverty at a college bookstore during his Oxford days, and found it as implicitly statist as Marxism.


Umm, this could very well be. I'd have to research it further. But from what I've read Wells was a Fabian Socialist who believed in having a world state.

----------


## Roy L

> I have, and I do see a parallel -- between the prevention of unqualified LVT and the abolition of slavery, not private landownership and slavery,


Absurd, dishonest, and disgraceful filth.  In every country where private landowning is well established and government does not intervene massively to rescue the landless from its inevitable effects, the condition of the landless is indistinguishable from that of slaves.  By contrast, in every country that has implemented a significant LVT, the condition of the landless *and everyone but the top few percent of landowners* has dramatically improved.



> all your geo-gibberish about "forcibly removing others' rights without just compensation" notwithstanding.


It is indisputable fact.



> Because your mantra is LVT FIRST AND ALL ELSE WILL FOLLOW,


No.  LVT first because nothing else can work without it: landowners will just continue to take everything above subsistence.



> your failure to distinguish between the real slaveowners and the slaves does little more than make sharecroppers out of anyone who hasn't the resources to compete with plantation owners.


No, that's just more absurd, dishonest, anti-economic garbage from you.  People in a landowning society can't compete with the resources of plantation owners BECAUSE THEY ARE PRIVILEGED AS LANDOWNERS.  Take away that privilege, as LVT does, and anyone can compete with them, because the more land one holds, the more difficult it is to use ALL of it more efficiently and productively than anyone else could use ANY of it.



> And your UIE is no more "just compensation" than space allocated for a slave shack on a plantation.


Another outrageous, despicable lie.  The space for the slave shack did not provide equal -- or any -- *access to opportunity*.  The UIE does.  You know this.  You just decided deliberately to lie about it.



> "By associating land and its rent with landlords as a distinct class best personified by British landlords, for instance, George downplayed the rents accruing on land owned by working families and commercial businesses." (no differently than you, Roy)


Lie.  I have never downplayed the rents of land owned by working families and commercial businesses.  I have taken considerable pains to estimate them and account for them in transition measures such as a recent purchase exemption.



> "His followers still might have demonstrated the degree to which rent is concentrated in the hands of the super-rich, polarizing the economy to favor large absentee owners and monopolists. But they undertook no statistical research. Their silence has enabled property interests to make a populist appeal to consumers in their role as homeowners to support a general reduction of real estate taxes."


And of course George and the Single Taxers missed the crucial need for a UIE.



> "Meanwhile, the role of ground rent in economic theory and social reform was waning."


More accurately, it was being deliberately suppressed by rentier interests.



> "What made their efforts so unsuccessful was the fact that despite Georges denial that his Single Tax was socialist, this was not how property owners saw it. The threat it posed to property and its income seemed more immediate and far-reaching than industrial socialism."


_When the emancipation of the African was spoken of, and when the nation of Britain appeared to be taking into serious consideration the rightfulness of abolishing slavery, what tremendous evils were to follow! Trade was to be ruined, commerce was almost to cease, and manufacturers were to be bankrupt. Worse than all, private property was to be invaded (property in human flesh), the rights of planters sacrificed to the speculative notions of fanatics, and the British government was to commit an act that would forever deprive it of the confidence of British subjects._ Patrick Edward Dove, The Theory of Human Progression, 1850



> H. G. Wells worried that a full land tax would lead to much larger government.


Hehe.  And what do we have now, after a century of declining property tax rates and virtually _no_ land tax...?

It is precisely the injustice and inefficiency of landowner privilege that creates the refractory economic and social problems that have REQUIRED much larger government to prevent landowning from impoverishing, enslaving and killing the landless.



> "He wrote in his autobiography that he had picked up a copy of Progress and Poverty at a college bookstore during his Oxford days, and found it as implicitly statist as Marxism. The difference was that where Marxism advocated direct political control of the state by the working class, Wells believed that Georges program would lead to this same end simply by fiscal policy."


Given that the great majority of people are working people, that is probably an accurate assessment of what would happen in a democracy with LVT: working people would use their votes to direct government to use the LVT revenue in the interest of the majority.  Some people evidently find this prospect intolerable.



> He saw the life of mankind limited and dwarfed by the continual rise in rents. His naive remedy was to tax the landowner, as Marxs naive remedy was to expropriate the capitalist, and just as Marx never gave his disciples the ghost of an idea for a competent administration of the expropriated economic plant and resources of the world, so Henry George never indicated how, in the world of implacable individualism he advocated, the taxing authority was to find a use for its ever-increasing tax receipts.


True, because George simply assumed the democratic republican form of government he grew up in and took for granted.  



> "Neither George nor his followers answered these questions by explaining how their land tax proposal would work in practice."


What needs to be explained?  There are already property taxes in place.  Just use the same machinery to tax land but not improvements.  Increase the tax rate, and use the increased revenue to eliminate unjust and destructive taxes commensurately.



> If land were nationalised, and afterwards chartered to an Agricultural Guild, its amenities would be socialized, wrote the editors of Londons New Age. By this means the amenities that now confuse the Single-taxers would be eliminated as matters of contention.


This seems plainly false, as land's most important amenities have nothing to do with agriculture, and an "Agricultural Guild" is not a market allocation system.



> But without proposing a quantitative explanation of how government would collect and distribute the flow of rent, Georges followers lacked a clear basis for engaging in serious political discussion. Their argument remained more philosophical than concrete.


IMO a major reason the Georgist Single Tax movement failed was that it never did get its philosophical ducks in a row, especially the necessity of a UIE.

----------


## Roy L

> I could post that the sky is not plaid, and it would lead to a pretty impressive twisting of words by some of the folks in this thread.


Why not try your hand at discussing the issue instead of just makin' stupid $#!+ up and attributing it to others?

----------


## MelissaWV

> Why not try your hand at discussing the issue instead of just makin' stupid $#!+ up and attributing it to others?


I already said what I wanted to say.  You decided to turn it into something else entirely.  From what I've seen, that is your (new?) m.o.  The reason that this War on Poverty is failing is that poverty, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.  When people get over themselves and realize that by likening poverty to a disease with which people are stricken, and can never recover, they are making things worse... maybe then we can talk.  

"Oh poor Jane!  Her house was foreclosed on!"  
"And she's a single mom!  Hope she is on foodstamps and Medicaid and WIC so those kids can eat!"
"Where's her deadbeat ex-husband in all this?  The courts should step in!"

Our Government enables bad behavior under the guise of saying they're "helping."  It's bull$#@!.  Poverty isn't bad, but static, legacy poverty is.  People used to help each other out to have far more of the former thant he latter.  Now Government has produced a huge group of people whose living is made by milking the Government and taking money out of my wallet.

All of this other navel-gazing is just that.

----------


## Roy L

> I already said what I wanted to say.  You decided to turn it into something else entirely.  From what I've seen, that is your (new?) m.o.


Garbage.  I simply corrected your erroneous claims.



> The reason that this War on Poverty is failing is that poverty, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.


If you happen not to be poor.  And no, as already explained, that is NOT the reason the war on poverty has failed.  The reason is that whatever we try to give the poor, landowners just take it away from them again in higher rents.  All the spending on the poor has simply enriched their landlords, because the people in charge refuse to know facts of economics.



> When people get over themselves and realize that by likening poverty to a disease with which people are stricken, and can never recover, they are making things worse... maybe then we can talk.


Nobody is saying poverty is like a disease from which people can never recover, any more than slavery is.  We are identifying the fact that poverty is caused by unjust institutions, just like slavery, and cannot be fixed without fixing those institutions, just like slavery.  It is refusal to know that fact, and persistently denying it when it has been proved, that is making things worse.

When you are willing to know the fact that people's rights to liberty and their access to opportunity have been forcibly and systematically removed without just compensation... maybe then we can talk.



> Our Government enables bad behavior under the guise of saying they're "helping."


True.  But the bad behavior is that of rich, greedy, privileged parasites.



> It's bull$#@!.  Poverty isn't bad, but static, legacy poverty is.


Poverty is definitely bad, and you need to find a willingness to understand why it is so hard for people to escape.



> All of this other navel-gazing is just that.


None so blind as he who will not see.

----------


## MelissaWV

Yeah, I've been homeless, I've been "low income" a good portion of my life, and now I am neither... but please do tut-tut at me about how I know nothing of being poor.  Twist and twist, and that was my point; you'd rather make assumptions about others, and blame it on the rich, than realize there's more in play here.  The bad behavior I was referring to, by the way, has nothing to do with the rich at all.

Pass go, dearheart; I have an inkling you aren't posting this from a local tent city, either.

----------


## redbluepill

> the condition of the landless is indistinguishable from that of slaves.


_"We used to own slaves; now we just rent them."_

-- Florida orange grower's quip about migrant farmworkers in the Edward R. Murrow documentary, Harvest of Shame, 1960


_Give me the private ownership of all the land, and... I will undertake to make slaves of all the human beings on the face of it. Not chattel slaves exactly, but slaves nevertheless. What an idiot I would be to make chattel slaves of them. I would have to find them salts and senna when they were sick, and whip them to work when they were lazy.

No, it is not good enough. Under the system I propose the fools would imagine they were all free. I would get a maximum of results, and have no responsibility whatever. They would cultivate the soil; they would dive into the bowels of the earth for its hidden treasures; they would build cities and construct railways and telegraphs; their ships would navigate the ocean; they would work and work, and invent and contrive; their warehouses would be full, their markets glutted, and... everything they made would belong to me. It would be this way, you see: As I owned all the land, they would of course, have to pay me rent._
-- Mark Twain, "Archimedes"
http://savingcommunities.org/issues/race.html


Gawd I love Mark Twain. :-)

----------


## redbluepill

> you'd rather make assumptions about others, and blame it on the rich, than realize there's more in play here.  The bad behavior I was referring to, by the way, has nothing to do with the rich at all.


He hasn't said anything about the rich. Georgists promote the gaining individual wealth (which is why they oppose income, capital, and sales taxes) . They oppose parasitism whether its through government as you know it or government through a landlord.

----------


## MelissaWV

> *He hasn't said anything about the rich.* Georgists promote the gaining individual wealth (which is why they oppose income, capital, and sales taxes) . They oppose parasitism whether its through government as you know it or government through a landlord.





> *But the bad behavior is that of rich, greedy, privileged parasites.*


That's a shame.

----------


## redbluepill

> That's a shame.


Who are the parasites he's talking about? The landlords.

He said rich as an adjective not a noun.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Who are the parasites he's talking about? The landlords.
> 
> He said rich as an adjective not a noun.


So rich, greedy parasites are not the rich.  Oh.  Clear.  Gotcha.



You two have at it; obviously another subject (language) where I don't know what I'm talking about.

----------


## redbluepill

> So rich, greedy parasites are not the rich.  Oh.  Clear.  Gotcha.
> 
> 
> 
> You two have at it; obviously another subject (language) where I don't know what I'm talking about.


Honestly, I'm not sure where the confusion lies.

----------


## Kluge

> Honestly, I'm not sure where the confusion lies.


Seriously?

And you're supposed to be the reasonable person trying to tout this Georgism rubbish?

----------


## Roy L

> Yeah, I've been homeless, I've been "low income" a good portion of my life, and now I am neither... but please do tut-tut at me about how I know nothing of being poor.


So, in your view it is too easy for the poor to make money and escape poverty?  We should be taking even more of what they earn and giving it to rich, greedy takers?



> Twist and twist, and that was my point; you'd rather make assumptions about others, and blame it on the rich, than realize there's more in play here.


It is you who do not realize what is in play.



> The bad behavior I was referring to, by the way, has nothing to do with the rich at all.


Which only proves you don't realize what is in play.



> Pass go, dearheart; I have an inkling you aren't posting this from a local tent city, either.


I have also been poor.  But unlike you, I made the effort to understand why people who are willing and able to be very productive are nonetheless poor.

----------


## Roy L

> So rich, greedy parasites are not the rich.  Oh.  Clear.  Gotcha.


So, in your view the rich are all the same, and there is no difference between a rich person who has stolen their money and a rich person who has earned it?

----------


## Roy L

> And you're supposed to be the reasonable person trying to tout this Georgism rubbish?


Speaking of rubbish, do you think that would describe Milton Friedman's views?

“In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago.” -- Milton Friedman, The Times Herald, Pennsylvania, 1978

----------


## Kluge

> Speaking of rubbish, do you think that would describe Milton Friedman's views?
> 
> “In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago.” -- Milton Friedman, The Times Herald, Pennsylvania, 1978


I'm sure Friedman wasn't as ineloquent as yourself. 

Appeal to authority is a $#@!ty argument if you didn't know. Good luck selling this using your own skills.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Speaking of rubbish, do you think that would describe Milton Friedman's views?


While you're at it, what do you suppose Al Gore thinks of the land value tax? Milton Friedman outed the Fed for its culpability, not in creating the Great Depression, but for being _not enough of a Fed_ going into it.  With that kind of backhanded endorsement who gives a $#@! what Milton Friedman thinks about anything?

----------


## Roy L

> I'm sure Friedman wasn't as ineloquent as yourself.


Is that the problem?  I don't think so.



> Appeal to authority is a $#@!ty argument if you didn't know.


<yawn>  It wasn't an appeal to authority, if you didn't know.  It was a proof that your claim that LVT is "rubbish" was proof only of your own ignorance.  Many of the most brilliant minds that ever lived have supported LVT, and it has succeeded brilliantly everywhere it has ever been implemented.  America's Founding Fathers made a land tax the sole source of federal revenue in the Articles of Confederation, and the only reason it didn't work, and make the USA richer than Europe in a single generation, was that there was no mechanism to collect it, and greedy, evil landowners refused to pay it.



> Good luck selling this using your own skills.


May you live long enough to see it.

----------


## Roy L

> While you're at it, what do you suppose Al Gore thinks of the land value tax?


I have no idea, but I doubt he supports it.  Dennnis Kucinich would be more like it.



> Milton Friedman outed the Fed for its culpability, not in creating the Great Depression, but for being _not enough of a Fed_ going into it.  With that kind of backhanded endorsement who gives a $#@! what Milton Friedman thinks about anything?


Uh, Steven, who do you imagine gives a $#@! what YOU think about anything?

----------


## Steven Douglas

> While you're at it, what do you suppose Al Gore thinks of the land value tax?
> 			
> 		
> 
> I have no idea, but I doubt he supports it.  Dennnis Kucinich would be more like it.


Yeah, I guess it wouldn't make sense for anyone who supports a MASSIVE carbon tax to also support wholesale arrogation of land rents to the state. That would be too far fetched, wouldn't it.  

Of all those in politics who are of the "never met a tax they didn't like" bent, I could definitely see them welcoming a land value tax with open arms. 

*Roy and Great Grandpa Henry George:* But it's to eventually replace the other taxes, right? It's meant as a single tax, you know. 
*Politician:* Oh, of course, of course! We'll just get this new taxing mechanism in place, and work out the shifting from there. I'm sure it will all work out just fine in the long run, just as Henry George predicted.
*Roy without Great Grandpa Henry George:*  And the UIE...very important, you know...
*Politician:* First things first, let's not put the cart before the all-important horse yet.  Otherwise, sure, why not?  We can phase it in any number of ways. We'll take it all under advisement.  :::: pat pat pat :::




> Uh, Steven, who do you imagine gives a $#@! what YOU think about anything?


Well, how on Earth would I know that, Mr. One Red Bar after 1,500+ _sound-and-fury-signifying-nothing_ posts?

----------


## redbluepill

> Seriously?
> 
> And you're supposed to be the reasonable person trying to tout this Georgism rubbish?


I was reasonably honest. Don't know what she's confused about. We've been clear that Georgism sees nothing wrong with acquiring wealth through productive means.

----------


## Roy L

> Yeah, I guess it wouldn't make sense for anyone who supports a MASSIVE carbon tax to also support wholesale arrogation of land rents to the state. That would be too far fetched, wouldn't it.


Yep.



> Of all those in politics who are of the "never met a tax they didn't like" bent, I could definitely see them welcoming a land value tax with open arms.


Nope.  The likes-all-taxes type are the very antithesis of the SINGLE tax type.  Duh.

[stupid, dishonest garbage snipped]

----------


## Kluge

> Is that the problem?  I don't think so.
> 
> <yawn>  It wasn't an appeal to authority, if you didn't know.  It was a proof that your claim that LVT is "rubbish" was proof only of your own ignorance.  Many of the most brilliant minds that ever lived have supported LVT, and it has succeeded brilliantly everywhere it has ever been implemented.  America's Founding Fathers made a land tax the sole source of federal revenue in the Articles of Confederation, and the only reason it didn't work, and make the USA richer than Europe in a single generation, was that there was no mechanism to collect it, and greedy, evil landowners refused to pay it.
> 
> May you live long enough to see it.


Why, so a jackass like you can steal my home out from under me when I worked my whole life to get it and be able to retire there? You are the greedy, evil bastard who wants to boot people out of their homes, and use government force to do so because you're too cowardly to look an old person in the eyes and kick them to the curb.

Oh, and saying "BUT FRIEDMAN LIKED IT!" is most certainly a very juvenile form of appeal to authority. I don't give a crap about Friedman, son. 

Finally, why don't you mind your own $#@!ing business and leave other people alone who aren't bothering you? You gotta have a hand in what everyone is doing--that's psychotic.

----------


## Kluge

.....

----------


## Kluge

> All very emotional, but with no content.  Come back when you sober up.


lol

Greedy, evil liar.

----------


## Origanalist

> All very emotional, but with no content.  Come back when you sober up.


No, not really. Just the simple truth.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> The likes-all-taxes type are the very antithesis of the SINGLE tax type.  Duh.


True enough. But LVT isn't a "single tax", is it. Geoists ADVOCATE that it be such, but that's irrelevant to the fact that the "likes-all-taxes" types would VERY MUCH LIKE a LAND VALUE TAX, because it's just another basis for a tax. One more revenue stream in the "three-legged stool" multiple revenue stream sources mindset.  Why wouldn't they welcome it? THEY WOULD.  They're not geoists, and are no obligation whatsoever to even THINK of a LAND VALUE TAX as a "single tax".  

Duh.

----------


## Kluge

> Trash talking is fun. But how about you try debating the issue while you're at it.


Indeed you and your cronies should.

You do realize that the "joke" in my post is that I'm quoting RoyL when I say "greedy, evil liar," right?

----------


## redbluepill

> Indeed you and your cronies should.


And we've provided sources, quotes, evidence, examples, etc. You could do the same.





> You do realize that the "joke" in my post is that I'm quoting RoyL when I say "greedy, evil liar," right?


And while the trash talking is not my debate style I'm fine with it as long as you are actually debating.

----------


## redbluepill

> True enough. But LVT isn't a "single tax", is it. Geoists ADVOCATE that it be such, but that's irrelevant to the fact that the "likes-all-taxes" types would VERY MUCH LIKE a LAND VALUE TAX, because it's just another basis for a tax. One more revenue stream in the "three-legged stool" multiple revenue stream sources mindset.  Why wouldn't they welcome it? THEY WOULD.  They're not geoists, and are no obligation whatsoever to even THINK of a LAND VALUE TAX as a "single tax".  
> 
> Duh.


Just because so-called progressives like the idea of another tax really has nothing to do with the viability of the LVT. Many of them also like free speech. Doesn't mean there is something wrong with free speech. Even when implemented alongside other taxes the LVT has done great things. Take for example Johannesburg South Africa which by all rights should have been a ghost town. But you act as if Georgists will be perfectly fine with ending the movement once we have an LVT. No, we also demand the end of the income tax. We also demand the end of the sales tax. 
http://savingcommunities.org/issues/...scommerce.html

We demand these things because a true free market would allow everyone to keep the fruits of their labor. What you create does not belong to the government, a landlord, or anyone else.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Just because so-called progressives like the idea of another tax really has nothing to do with the viability of the LVT.


Nor was it argued otherwise. However, even when you say "the viability of LVT", it begs the question of whether you mean "...as a single tax", or "as a tax". That goes right to the salient, relevant core of what was actually being argued, which EW and Roy don't like to acknowledge; namely, that there is *absolutely nothing about LVT that makes it a single tax*.  A proposal for a single tax is a single tax, and that can apply to virtually any tax.  But that's not LVT.  LVT only means Land Value Tax. Period. When people like Roy and EW refer to LVT, they want the Henry George or Roy L. preferred implementation, or geoist proposition of LVT as a single tax, to be simply understood -- even to the point where they will actually say something along the lines of, "Uh, hello? LVT? What is it about SINGLE TAX that you don't understand? We even underlined it for you! Duh." -- as if LVT and SINGLE TAX were somehow synonymous, inherently inseparable or interchangeable as terms when they are anything but. 

The above is proved by the fact that even the geoist preferred implementation of LVT as a single tax is very much a foot-in-the-door proposition/strategy, since in most cases it is not practical to implement where other taxing mechanisms are already in place.  So LVT MUST be implemented as _something other than a single tax_ to begin with in nearly all cases, right alongside other taxes. Their push is to get LVT implemented first, to whatever degree possible. That is where its attractiveness to "never saw a tax they didn't like" types comes into play - and also why you can't do a Vulcan Mind Meld that conflates LVT and SINGLE TAX.  So-called progressives who love all taxes might well be opposed to a SINGLE TAX, while LOVING AND WELCOMING LVT PRECISELY BECAUSE IT IS NOT.   

It's only _after_ initial implementation that geoists THEN will try to do whatever it takes to phase it in, shifting all other taxes to LVT until the ideal "SINGLE TAX" is achieved, and LVT is the only source of revenue.  But that is also the problem, given that the very tax junkies who COULD be convinced to implement LVT are also the same who must be convinced afterward to actually shift other taxes to LVT so that they can be eliminated. 

And this poses another conundrum in what appears to me to be a spirit of Henry George that lingers in most LVT proponents I've encountered.  There is a deep-seated belief that LVT as a SINGLE TAX PANACEA will NATURALLY solve all social ills once fully and properly implemented.  They'll even point to Kiaochow as a shining example, even though there is absolutely no way of knowing whether Kiaochow and its colonists would have thrived and prospered as a major colonial port of call in Asia under any other taxing regime.   

But that deep-seated belief in LVT naturally solving all social ills (as a single tax) seems to appear also as an unspoken belief that extends even to LVT even as one-of-many taxes in the beginning -- that somehow LVT itself will naturally take over as a single tax, like something analogous to Thier's law, wherein "good taxing mechanisms drive out bad ones" once it is implemented; that somehow the state (or voters) will be made to see the wisdom of making it the only tax once the LVT seed has been planted.   Whether that's an actual belief or not doesn't matter - the way it is sold to others implies as much, and the push is the same, regardless. To me that's no different than the Federal Reserve System, Social Security or Obamacare... the strategy being to get it passed first, get it rooted so deeply that so many dependencies are created that it can't be killed without enormous repercussions, and then clean up the mess ("perfect it") later once the parasitic monster takes on a life of its own.

----------


## Zippyjuan

OK- Let's talk content, sources, and evidence.  

How about some numbers? What would a LVT rate have to be to support our government?  I will use property taxes as a proxy for LVT. 

Granted not all states have the same property tax rates (some don't have any) but on the whole, according to the US Census, second quarter of 2011 property taxes collected for the entire US came to $88.5 billion. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/g11-qtax2.pdf  At the same time, total state tax collections (including property, income, sales, and other taxes) came to $344.5 billion.   So just at the state level, if you wanted to replace all tax revenues and not even think of funding anything at the Federal level, you would have to increase property taxes by 389% or roughly quadruple them.  That would raise $1.378 trillion a year. 

Now for the sake of using real and not hypothetical numbers, let us assume we want to balance our Federal budget and only collect taxes from land values (using again property tax figures). Government spending for 2010 was $3.55 trillion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget  I almost messed up and tried to use the $88.5 billion figure but we need to multiply the quarterly figure by four to get an annual number- $354 billion raised per year via property taxes. That means we need ten times the current rate on property taxes to balance the budget and get rid of all other forms of taxes.  

Combine the state and federal figures and you come up with 14 times higher property tax rates meaning if you are currently paying $1000 a year in property taxes, you will need to come up with $14,000 a year instead if you want to go with a single tax. That would cause a lot of present home owners to lose their property because they could no longer afford it.  And renters would be hit as hard too- property taxes are included in you rental rates. Plus the flood of people losing homes they once owned would be competing with available rental units increasing demand for them. 

Yes, the figures are not perfect but give us some idea of what sort of tax rate we might be looking at. As a reminder, about 45% of all filers end up owing no income taxes at the Federal level. Those people would not see any offset of the LVT by paying lower taxes in other areas such as income taxes. Those who do pay lots of taxes currently would be the ones who would see benefits.  We would see a consolidation of property ownership into fewer and fewer hands.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Let's take another perspective on numbers. Yes, the US is 3.79 million square miles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States  but much of that is not developed. 

http://www.westernwatersheds.org/wat...r/article6.htm



> Developed and rural residential make up 139 million acres, or 6.1 percent of total land area in the U.S.


Let's say we exempt farmlands from LVT to try to keep food costs low. And undeveloped lands (you can't really collect taxes on undeveloped lands- who should pay the assesment on say the Mojave Desert). According to the source above, that leaves us with 139 million acres.  And let's again look at just Federal spending of $3.55 trillion a year.  That means that we would require a LVT of $25,539 an acre to balance the current Federal budget with just this one tax by itself. 

Say we add in crop lands. 



> Cropland- About 349 million acres in the U.S. are planted for crops.


Now we have a basis of 488 million acres.  That lowers our taxes down to $7,275 an acre. For Federal spending. If we include the states, that puts us at $10,000 an acre.

----------


## Roy L

> Let's say we exempt farmlands from LVT to try to keep food costs low.


Exempting farmlands would keep food costs *high*.  You haven't understood that LVT is fundamentally different from all our current taxes: *IT MAKES THINGS CHEAPER, NOT MORE EXPENSIVE*.  LVT means farmers can acquire land at no cost, and holding land unused would not be viable, so more land would be put in crops, increasing suplpy and reducing food prices.  LVT cannot, repeat, CANNOT be passed on to consumers, tenants, employees, suppliers, or anyone else, because the supply of land is *fixed*.  It is borne entirely and exclusively by the landowner.  This is a fact of economics that has been known for 200 years.



> And undeveloped lands (you can't really collect taxes on undeveloped lands- who should pay the assesment on say the Mojave Desert). According to the source above, that leaves us with 139 million acres.


Just because land is undeveloped does not mean it is undesirable.



> And let's again look at just Federal spending of $3.55 trillion a year.  That means that we would require a LVT of $25,539 an acre to balance the current Federal budget with just this one tax by itself.


Per acre is not an informative way of analyzing it.



> Say we add in crop lands. Now we have a basis of 488 million acres.  That lowers our taxes down to $7,275 an acre. For Federal spending. If we include the states, that puts us at $10,000 an acre.


The urban and suburban land that would pay for most of an LVT yields average rent far higher than $10K/ac/yr.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> LVT means farmers can acquire land at no cost,


How does one aquire farmland at no cost?  And taxing them would make their costs LOWER than not taxing them?  Taxes would be an expense- like seeds and water and fertilizer. 

And yes, costs do get passed on to consumers. If the guy you are renting say a house from has his taxes raised, why would he eat the entire thing?  That would only happen if there is so much competition from other land owners who are renting to tenants that he would no longer be able to rent it out if he raised his prices. Since, as you point out, the supply of land is fixed, the demand will not be completely elastic which would be required to keep costs from being passed on by landowners. This is an economic fact. 

Here is a referesher on elasticity for you to look at if you are still confused: http://www.investopedia.com/universi...#axzz20AdgMNYT



> A good or service is considered to be highly elastic if a slight change in price leads to a sharp change in the quantity demanded or supplied. Usually these kinds of products are readily available in the market and a person may not necessarily need them in his or her daily life. On the other hand, an inelastic good or service is one in which changes in price witness only modest changes in the quantity demanded or supplied, if any at all. These goods tend to be things that are more of a necessity to the consumer in his or her daily life. 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/universi...#ixzz20Ae8ZkLH





> Per acre is not an informative way of analyzing it.


I am open to suggestion. How would you suggest we try to estimate the costs of LVT?




> The urban and suburban land that would pay for most of an LVT yields *average rent far higher than $10K/ac/yr.*


SO you would agree that LVT would be expensive.  This would somehow "make everything cheaper"?

Sorry- it is not "magic dust".

----------


## Roy L

> True enough. But LVT isn't a "single tax", is it.


Yes, actually, it is.  You just always have to lie.  ALWAYS.



> Geoists ADVOCATE that it be such, but that's irrelevant to the fact that the "likes-all-taxes" types would VERY MUCH LIKE a LAND VALUE TAX,


No, that's a flat-out lie, Steven.  You're just baldly lying again, as usual.  The likes-all-taxes types have had many chances to support LVT, and they have NEVER done so, but instead have *always* attacked it with maniacal ferocity, just like any other stupid, evil, lying sack of $#!+.



> because it's just another basis for a tax.


*NO, IT IS NOT.  ALL OTHER TAXES TAKE FROM PRODUCERS TO GIVE TO LANDOWNERS.  LVT RECOVERS WHAT LANDOWNERS ARE TAKING FROM SOCIETY AND LEAVES PRODUCERS STRICTLY ALONE.  THE LIKES-ALL-TAXES TYPES ARE AWARE, EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT, THAT THE TARGET OF THEIR TAXES IS ALWAYS THE PRODUCER, NEVER THE LANDOWNER.*



> One more revenue stream in the "three-legged stool" multiple revenue stream sources mindset.


LVT is radically different from other taxes, as already explained a hundred times.  You just refuse to know that fact, and all the other facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil.



> Why wouldn't they welcome it?


They are not interested in liberty, justice, prosperity, or the truth.



> THEY WOULD.


*THEY DON'T.*



> They're not geoists, and are no obligation whatsoever to even THINK of a LAND VALUE TAX as a "single tax".


But they oppose it with maniacal ferocity anyway.

Duh.

----------


## Roy L

> No, not really. Just the simple truth.


There was not a true statement in his post.  It was all just absurd lies.  You know this.  Stop lying.

----------


## MelissaWV

You can tell that the truth is coming out, because the letters are getting larger and the font is getting bolder.

----------


## Zippyjuan

And rather than refuting with facts and evidences, as he requested earlier, the responce is to say things are all "lies".

----------


## Zippyjuan

> All very emotional, but with no content.  Come back when you sober up.


"Lies! Lies! All Lies!"  I think your recent posts  were very emotional but no content.

----------


## Kluge

> There was not a true statement in his post.  It was all just absurd lies.  You know this.  Stop lying.


You're a clown. And that's no lie.

----------


## Roy L

> How does one aquire farmland at no cost?


As it does not yield any unearned income, its price is zero (or the pre-paid LVT balance).



> And taxing them would make their costs LOWER than not taxing them?


That is correct, but ONLY in the case of LVT, because the cost of using or renting the land would be the same, but farmers would no longer be paying taxes on what they produced and consumed.  The same would go for every other producer, too.  LVT dramatically lowers total production costs by eliminating the requirement that producers support an exorbitantly greedy, idle, privileged, parasitic landowning class in addition to themselves, their families, and government.



> Taxes would be an expense- like seeds and water and fertilizer.


And would come out of the land acquisition cost: *no more mortgage cost, neither principal nor interest*.  The actual rental cost of farmland would probably also decline, as more land would be put on the market, and more would be planted in crops, reducing food prices.



> And yes, costs do get passed on to consumers.


Nope.  You are fundamentally misinformed on a key law of economics.  Producers can't just pass on all their costs to consumers.  If they could, no firm would ever go bankrupt.  Duh.  The degree to which costs can be passed on is determined by the relevant elasticities of supply and demand.  As land's supply is fixed and its elasticity of demand is positive, *none* of a tax that falls on land rent can be passed on to consumers or anyone else.  It is borne 100% by the landowner.



> If the guy you are renting say a house from has his taxes raised, why would he eat the entire thing?


Becuase if the tax is on the land value, he has no choice: if he tries to get more than the market rent (which he is presumably already charging -- although some landlords do not because real people are not perfect profit maximizers), his tenant will just leave.  If the tax is on the house, the situation is quite different: he can reduce his taxes by letting the house deteriorate, *which affects supply*.  He can't reduce his taxes on the land, because its unimproved value is not affected by anything he does or doesn't do.



> That would only happen if there is so much competition from other land owners who are renting to tenants that he would no longer be able to rent it out if he raised his prices.


Bingo.  Land rent is the result of a competition between TENANTS that has already taken place.  The landowner has no say in it, because he cannot affect either supply or demand.  His only choice is to accept the high bid or get nothing (of course, in the real world he can choose to accept a lower bid for reasons of sentiment, etc. that economics generally doesn't consider).



> Since, as you point out, the supply of land is fixed, the demand will not be completely elastic which would be required to keep costs from being passed on by landowners.


No, it would not.  As long as there is ANY elasticity of demand, and no elasticity of supply, the cost *cannot* be passed on.



> This is an economic fact.


No, it is not, but the fact that LVT *cannot* be passed on *IS* an economic fact.  It is merely an economic fact that is not known to _you_.



> Here is a referesher on elasticity for you to look at if you are still confused: http://www.investopedia.com/universi...#axzz20AdgMNYT


<yawn>  I am quite familiar with elasticity, thanks.  Your source does not support your claim.  Look at the diagrams here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_inc...elastic_demand

and imagine what happens when the supply line is vertical (i.e., there is no difference in the supply of land with and without the tax).  The entire burden is borne by the "producer" (i.e., the owner) of the land.



> How would you suggest we try to estimate the costs of LVT?


It is ideally equal to, and can't exceed, the rental value of the land.



> SO you would agree that LVT would be expensive.


On the most desirable land, yes, of course it would be expensive.  LVT removes the welfare subsidy giveaway to the landowner, so it is exactly as expensive as renting the land in the market would be.  If a land parcel could be rented for $100M/yr, that's how much the LVT would be.

----------


## Roy L

> You can tell that the truth is coming out, because the letters are getting larger and the font is getting bolder.


<yawn>  When fools stick their fingers in their ears and babble, "lalalalala I can't hear you lalalalala..." there's an overwhelming temptation to just shout in their stupid faces.

Refusal to know is always evil.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> But LVT isn't a "single tax", is it.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Yes, actually, it is.  You just always have to lie.  ALWAYS.


That's proof positive that you do hold the two terms (LVT and SINGLE TAX), not only to be synonymous and interchangeable, but inseparable, as if that was just understood.  There is zero acknowledgement on your part that Land Value Tax already exists, and not necessarily as the only "single" tax.  In many Pennsylvania cities, for example, property tax has a two tier component; one for real estate/improvements and a much higher land rent component for the unimproved value of land - that land rent component is a Land Value Tax.  And in Pennsylvania, that Land Value Tax, which does exist and is levied, is not the "single tax", unless you want to wax poop-stupid with semantics hair-splitting and say that each individual tax is a "single" [type of] tax.  In that case Land Value Tax is a single tax, but so are the other taxes when considered individually - even though they coexist and are all levied simultaneously. 




> No, that's a flat-out lie, Steven.  You're just baldly lying again, as usual.  The likes-all-taxes types have had many chances to support LVT, and they have NEVER done so, but instead have *always* attacked it with maniacal ferocity, just like any other stupid, evil, lying sack of $#!+.


Yeah? Well in Pennsylvania, it's the GOP that wants to end the property tax, including the LVT ad valorem land rent component on unimproved land value, and it is the progressives who are vehemently opposed to abolishing it.   But again, you're not talking about Land Value Tax at all, are you. Otherwise you would acknowledge that tax-loving progressives are VERY protective of it, but only as one of many revenue streams.  You say "they have always attacked *it*", but by *"it"* you don't mean Land Value Tax, but rather Land Value Tax As The ONLY Tax  -- which everyone save geoists is pretty much opposed to.  




> *NO, IT IS NOT.  ALL OTHER TAXES TAKE FROM PRODUCERS TO GIVE TO LANDOWNERS.  LVT RECOVERS WHAT LANDOWNERS ARE TAKING FROM SOCIETY AND LEAVES PRODUCERS STRICTLY ALONE.  THE LIKES-ALL-TAXES TYPES ARE AWARE, EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT, THAT THE TARGET OF THEIR TAXES IS ALWAYS THE PRODUCER, NEVER THE LANDOWNER.*


Wow, those are some mighty big words.  I don't care what you believe about who is "taking from society" (or community, whatever the $#@! that means), or how your religion aims to set it all straight.  It's all geo-gibberish to me. The likes-all-taxes types are exactly that. _They likes all taxes_! That includes the Ad Valorem Tax on Unimproved Land Value (AKA LVT) -- _just not exclusively_, not as a "single tax" -- that's the part that has your panties in a bunch. 




> LVT is radically different from other taxes, as already explained a hundred times.  You just refuse to know that fact, and all the other facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil.


Oh, by "LVT" did you mean Land Value Tax? Or did you mean to say *Land Value Tax which we will only define as a Land Value Tax when it is the sole source of revenue for the state*? Is that the qualifier that would make Land Value Tax radically different -- making it the only source of revenue for the state?  Or are you still going to cling to the notion that LVT is, exclusively and inherently, a single tax?

----------


## MelissaWV

> <yawn>  When fools stick their fingers in their ears and babble, "lalalalala I can't hear you lalalalala..." there's an overwhelming temptation to just shout in their stupid faces.
> 
> Refusal to know is always evil.


Of course.  The most intelligent people on the planet shout in people's faces, and call them stupid.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Again, if I may, how does one aquire farmland for free?  Who is going to be willing to give it away at no cost to them? 

And let me try again with elasticity. Perhaps I should add that I have a degree in Economics so I have studied these things. 

    I used the example of one person owning property and lending it out and what impact raising taxes would have on him but that was to represent the agregate.  Taxes would not be raised on one landowner obviously but on all.  This does make it easier for them to pass along those taxes to renters in the form of higher prices since a renter cannot choose between one without the tax and one with the tax. If one person's costs go up but the cost for others does not and they are easily substituted for his, then he will indeed have a more difficult time passing it along. 

Let me show you a couple basic economic charts since you seem to be having troubles with this. If the supply of land is elastic- that means that the supply will change as the price of land changes.  On  a graph, it would look something like this:


http://econ.economicshelp.org/2007/1...ic-supply.html

Now we have already agreed that the supply of land is fixed.  That means that the quantity of it available will not change if the price of it changes. Right? That means inelastic supply. (we are of course ignoring that the USE of the land could change depending on prices you could get for different uses of the land- say homes vs farms vs buildings). That looks like the one on the right here:



Now that is just one half of what we need though. The other is demand.  In order for a landowner to not be able to pass along any cost increases (taxes or whatever) the demand must perfectly ELASTIC (which the chart you linked to shows)- meaning that if the costs of renting from all landlords went up, people would no longer rent. With perfectly elastic demand it is impossible to raise prices or else nobody will buy or rent from you at all.  That is not true since people still need a place to live. If you raise your rent one penny, you will no longer be able to rent it out to ANYBODY. The demand for land is NOT perfectly elastic. 

SO if all properties get hit with this LVT, the costs of all landlords goes up. Individually, they may or may not be able to raise the rents they ask for but if they all raise them, the consumer has no choice- there are limited to no alternatives.   No other land is available to rent instead. 

If the landlord cannot afford this tax (and if my figures from earlier are anything even remotely close, this could be the case for many owners) then unless they can rent the land to somebody else at a price they can get enough money to cover this higher tax with, they will be forced to sell their land and themselves become renters. Of course if they are forced to rent out what they used to own, they became renters anyways. 

Now let us look at your latest claim, 




> It is ideally equal to, and can't exceed, the rental value of the land.


If I own land and am taxed at whatever I could rent the land for, why would I own the land in the first place?  There would be no benefit. If I was the owner and rented it out, all the rent I collect would be taken by the tax.  If I was an owner and just wanted to live there, it is stlil going to cost me the same- either way I lose what it cost to buy.  Oh yeah, I almost forgot. *The purpose of LVT is to get rid of all of the evil landowners stealing from society and turn it over to the government who would rent out the land in a socially responsible manner and charge a fair price for using it* (but if they owned all of the land they would basiclly be able to tax as much as they wanted since they controlled the resource completely just as feudal lords did).

----------


## Roy L

> Again, if I may, how does one aquire farmland for free?  Who is going to be willing to give it away at no cost to them?


Anyone who can't use it as productively and thus can't meet the tax liability.



> And let me try again with elasticity. Perhaps I should add that I have a degree in Economics


No, you don't.  Economics education is shockingly bad, but it's not that bad.



> so I have studied these things.


No, you haven't.



> I used the example of one person owning property and lending it out and what impact raising taxes would have on him but that was to represent the agregate.  Taxes would not be raised on one landowner obviously but on all.  This does make it easier for them to pass along those taxes to renters in the form of higher prices since a renter cannot choose between one without the tax and one with the tax.


Irrelevant.  He is only willing to pay the market rent.  Charge him any more, and he just makes an automatic loss.  Google "Law of Rent" and start reading.



> If one person's costs go up but the cost for others does not and they are easily substituted for his, then he will indeed have a more difficult time passing it along.


It has nothing to do with whether other landowners are also taxed.  Landowners are already charging the market rate.  If they could charge more without losing tenants, they would.  Because they can't affect demand OR SUPPLY, they cannot affect price.



> Let me show you a couple basic economic charts since you seem to be having troubles with this.


I am only having trouble getting *you* to understand it.



> Now we have already agreed that the supply of land is fixed.  That means that the quantity of it available will not change if the price of it changes. Right? That means inelastic supply. (we are of course ignoring that the USE of the land could change depending on prices you could get for different uses of the land- say homes vs farms vs buildings). That looks like the one on the right here:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is just one half of what we need though. The other is demand.  In order for a landowner to not be able to pass along any cost increases (taxes or whatever) the demand must perfectly ELASTIC (which the chart you linked to shows)- meaning that if the costs of renting from all landlords went up, people would no longer rent.


No.  When supply is fixed, any demand elasticity above zero means the entire burden is borne by the landowner.  As neither the tax nor the landowner can affect either supply or demand, they can't affect price.



> With perfectly elastic demand it is impossible to raise prices or else nobody will buy or rent from you at all.  That is not true since people still need a place to live. If you raise your rent one penny, you will no longer be able to rent it out to ANYBODY. The demand for land is NOT perfectly elastic.


But neither is it perfectly inelastic.  As a result, any attempt to raise rents will just result in less land being used, and some landowners thus subsidizing others.  Why would they?



> SO if all properties get hit with this LVT, the costs of all landlords goes up. Individually, they may or may not be able to raise the rents they ask for but if they all raise them, the consumer has no choice- there are limited to no alternatives.   No other land is available to rent instead.


But consumers can choose to just use less land, and the owners of the unused land are then just eating losses: i.e., they are LOSING EVEN MORE THAN IF THEY JUST KEPT THE RENT THE SAME, AND STILL HAD THEIR TENANTS.  Why would they agree to do that, rather than rent their land for the market rent?



> If the landlord cannot afford this tax (and if my figures from earlier are anything even remotely close, this could be the case for many owners) then unless they can rent the land to somebody else at a price they can get enough money to cover this higher tax with, they will be forced to sell their land and themselves become renters.


The tax can't exceed the amount they can get in rent, so LVT is always automatically affordable.  What landowners MIGHT not be able to afford is mortgage payments on top of tax payments (hence the Recent Purchase Exemption as a transition measure), or using the land themselves, but less productively than the most productive prospective user would use it. 



> Of course if they are forced to rent out what they used to own, they became renters anyways.


The occupation of "landowner" would cease to exist.



> If I own land and am taxed at whatever I could rent the land for, why would I own the land in the first place?  There would be no benefit.


Bingo.  The landowner is a parasite.  He performs no productive function, makes no productive contribution.  So under LVT, he disappears.  Good riddance.

What is left is the land USER, who wants the land not to own it but to use it.  HE gets the benefit of the opportunity the land presents; but that is the same whether he is paying the rent to a private landowner or the community, so price is again unaffected.



> If I was the owner and rented it out, all the rent I collect would be taken by the tax.  If I was an owner and just wanted to live there, it is stlil going to cost me the same- either way I lose what it cost to buy.


Correct.  The tax is borne entirely by the landowner, just like the cost of emancipating slaves was borne by the slave owners.



> Oh yeah, I almost forgot. *The purpose of LVT is to get rid of all of the evil landowners stealing from society and turn it over to the government who would rent out the land in a socially responsible manner and charge a fair price for using it* (but if they owned all of the land they would basiclly be able to tax as much as they wanted since they controlled the resource completely just as feudal lords did).


Feudal lords did sometimes try to charge tenants more than the market rent (this was called, "rack-rent"), and were even able to do so because of laws from the late Roman Empire legally binding serfs to the land.  The difference: feudal lords had no fiduciary duty to spend the revenue in the public interest, and were not accountable through democratic processes and institutions.

If you assume that government is just some arbitrary king, despot or dictator, then LVT is merely the least harmful tax.  There's nothing to say the king won't squander all the revenue on luxuries, reducing his own next-year's revenue.  But the democratic governments of advanced countries, though definitely dumb, are not _that_ dumb.

----------


## redbluepill

> when you say "the viability of LVT", it begs the question of whether you mean "...as a single tax", or "as a tax".


It is viable as both. But I much prefer it as a single tax.







> That goes right to the salient, relevant core of what was actually being argued, which EW and Roy don't like to acknowledge; namely, that there is absolutely nothing about LVT that makes it a single tax.


There are many aspects of the LVT that will lead to the reduction and/or elimination of other taxes. We argue that the LVT encourages economic growth. Hundreds of taxing jurisdictions saw an increase in construction and renovation after the tax shift. Pittsburgh is a classic example.




> A proposal for a single tax is a single tax, and that can apply to virtually any tax. But that's not LVT. LVT only means Land Value Tax. Period.


It is the only tax that has been historically referred to as the Single Tax. I don't know of any other tax that has been advocated to replace all other taxes.





> When people like Roy and EW refer to LVT, they want the Henry George or Roy L. preferred implementation, or geoist proposition of LVT as a single tax, to be simply understood -- even to the point where they will actually say something along the lines of, "Uh, hello? LVT? What is it about SINGLE TAX that you don't understand? We even underlined it for you! Duh." -- as if LVT and SINGLE TAX were somehow synonymous, inherently inseparable or interchangeable as terms when they are anything but. 
> The above is proved by the fact that even the geoist preferred implementation of LVT as a single tax is very much a foot-in-the-door proposition/strategy, since in most cases it is not practical to implement where other taxing mechanisms are already in place. So LVT MUST be implemented as something other than a single tax to begin with in nearly all cases, right alongside other taxes. Their push is to get LVT implemented first, to whatever degree possible. That is where its attractiveness to "never saw a tax they didn't like" types comes into play - and also why you can't do a Vulcan Mind Meld that conflates LVT and SINGLE TAX. So-called progressives who love all taxes might well be opposed to a SINGLE TAX, while LOVING AND WELCOMING LVT PRECISELY BECAUSE IT IS NOT.


You may have an LVT alongside other taxes. That much has never been denied. So what if progressives don't like the other objectives of Georgists? Implementation of LVT = true progress. LVT alongside the elimination of income and sales tax = more progress.

Of course, if you have LVT set too low it may not be able to stop speculation. For example, Vancouver had it in 1910 as its only form of taxation. However, the tax was set at 2%; too low to stop the real estate collapse of 1913.




> It's only after initial implementation that geoists THEN will try to do whatever it takes to phase it in, shifting all other taxes to LVT until the ideal "SINGLE TAX" is achieved, and LVT is the only source of revenue. But that is also the problem, given that the very tax junkies who COULD be convinced to implement LVT are also the same who must be convinced afterward to actually shift other taxes to LVT so that they can be eliminated.


It would be easier to convince them when they see economic prosperity and the wealth gap gradually being eliminated. The arguments for socialism and more government would be weakened. Voters will be less willing to agree to taxing productive activities due to fewer societal problems.





> And this poses another conundrum in what appears to me to be a spirit of Henry George that lingers in most LVT proponents I've encountered. There is a deep-seated belief that LVT as a SINGLE TAX PANACEA will NATURALLY solve all social ills once fully and properly implemented.


It has proven effective even before it was fully and properly implemented. When tax jurisdictions decided to shift taxation away from improvements and towards the land we saw increased productivity which led to lower unemployment numbers. Didn't mean they also completely eliminated other taxes but I assure you if they did they would see a true renaissance in their economies.




> They'll even point to Kiaochow as a shining example, even though there is absolutely no way of knowing whether Kiaochow and its colonists would have thrived and prospered as a major colonial port of call in Asia under any other taxing regime.


I saw someone make this argument about the Japanese experiencing an economic boom after adopting the LVT during the Meiji Restoration. The truth is there are too many examples of success under the LVT to ignore it.

1. Soon after the LVT was implemented in NYC new construction tripled while it barely doubled in other cities.

2. Hong Kong witnessed dramatic economic growth under the LVT.

3. Likewise with Singapore.

4. You may think that Hong Kong's and Singapore's success was due to the fact they were port cities. But then we can look at landlocked Johannesburg. They had few resources left after exhausting their mines. They adopted an LVT and witnessed growth greater than Cape Town's.

5. California's central valley became a bread basket arguably through the LVT.

6. South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan adopted land taxes which limited the rent paid by tenants to landlords. Japan's economy collapsed in the 80s when they allowed land speculation to get out of control.

And there are many many other examples but I don't want to take up too much message board space.




> But that deep-seated belief in LVT naturally solving all social ills (as a single tax) seems to appear also as an unspoken belief that extends even to LVT even as one-of-many taxes in the beginning


It has its own benefits as discussed earlier.




> that somehow LVT itself will naturally take over as a single tax,


It would lead to conditions that will make it easier to reduce the size of government.

----------


## Roy L

> Of course.  The most intelligent people on the planet shout in people's faces, and call them stupid.


I never claimed to be the most intelligent person on the planet -- and I am definitely not the most tolerant of stupidity.

----------


## Roy L

> And rather than refuting with facts and evidences, as he requested earlier, the responce is to say things are all "lies".


You know that is a lie.  Look at my responses to your own posts, and apologize for lying.

----------


## redbluepill

> Bingo. The landowner is a parasite. He performs no productive function, makes no productive contribution. So under LVT, he disappears. Good riddance.


But we can't have civilization without a landlord! 

I think you posted this before Roy. But it deserves reposting.
http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Gaffney_landlord.html

----------


## Zippyjuan

> You know that is a lie.  Look at my responses to your own posts, and apologize for lying.


Yes, you did respond to me. Thank you. But to the others you only offered emotional responces.

I note that now I have been promoted to "liar" status as well. Seems to be one of your favorite responces. It certainly gets used a lot. 

And I guess you know my educational background better than I do. I bow to your superiority. Perhaps you have aquired your PhD? I am sorry that I did not complete my Master's degree and only have a BA (and two majors) with some graduate work to go by. 






> And let me try again with elasticity. Perhaps I should add that I have a degree in Economics
> 			
> 		
> 
> No, you don't. Economics education is shockingly bad, but it's not that bad.







> so I have studied these things.
> 			
> 		
> 
> No, you haven't.


It seems it is impossible to teach you basic economics so good luck with things. I see no point in continuing this discussion.  Thank you for at least trying to respond to my concerns even if I disagree with you.  I was going to try to correct some more of your errors but don't see any reason they would have any effect.  People (including myself from time to time) have been trying for literally hundreds of pages in this and other threads.

----------


## Roy L

> Yes, you did respond to me. Thank you. But to the others you only offered emotional responces.


Lie.



> I note that now I have been promoted to "liar" status as well. Seems to be one of your favorite responces. It certainly gets used a lot.


It is the literal truth.  There is no way to justify evil but by lying.



> And I guess you know my educational background better than I do.


I know ignorance of economics when I see it.



> I bow to your superiority. Perhaps you have aquired your PhD? I am sorry that I did not complete my Master's degree and only have a BA (and two majors) with some graduate work to go by.


Maybe you have a bachelor's degree and some graduate work.  But it isn't in economics.  That's why I'm having to school you on the most basic facts.



> It seems it is impossible to teach you basic economics so good luck with things.


Anyone with a degree in economics would know that when elasticity of supply is 0, *any* elasticity of demand but 0 puts all the burden on the supplier.



> I see no point in continuing this discussion.


Nor I.



> Thank you for at least trying to respond to my concerns even if I disagree with you.  I was going to try to correct some more of your errors but don't see any reason they would have any effect.


*I* have corrected *your* error.



> People (including myself from time to time) have been trying for literally hundreds of pages in this and other threads.


And I have demolished them.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Resorting again to calling everything lies.  This is why further discussion is useless. 

Yes, I am demolished.  I shall go and cry now.

----------


## Roy L

> That's proof positive that you do hold the two terms (LVT and SINGLE TAX), not only to be synonymous and interchangeable, but inseparable, as if that was just understood.


No.  You just don't understand plain English.  LVT is *a* single tax, just as an estate tax is a single tax or an income tax is a single tax (in fact, I have seen a book entitled, "The Single Tax," about a flat-rate INCOME tax).  LVT as *THE* single tax has a quite different meaning: use of LVT as the sole source of government revenue, and abolition of all other taxes.

But the moral and economic merits of LVT do not depend on abolition of all other taxes.  They are merely morally and economically inferior, not a logical constraint that would prevent LVT from working.  It might be beneficial to have some other taxes, like a tax on alcohol to defray the costs that alcohol consumption imposes on society in the form of violent crime, traffic accidents, etc.; or a tax on licensed professionals like doctors and lawyers to compensate for the forcible removal of others' liberty to engage in those professions and the consequent reduced competition and higher prices; or a tax on persistent pesticides to compensate for the harm they do when they leak out from the farm where they are applied into the broader environment.



> There is zero acknowledgement on your part that Land Value Tax already exists, and not necessarily as the only "single" tax.


No, that is a lie.  I have stated many times that LVT has been used successfully in places where other taxes were also in use.  AFAIK, the only time LVT was the ONLY source of government revenue was in Kiaochow.  It was of course massively successful.



> In many Pennsylvania cities, for example, property tax has a two tier component; one for real estate/improvements and a much higher land rent component for the unimproved value of land - that land rent component is a Land Value Tax.  And in Pennsylvania, that Land Value Tax, which does exist and is levied, is not the "single tax", unless you want to wax poop-stupid with semantics hair-splitting and say that each individual tax is a "single" [type of] tax.


Speaking of poop-stupid, that is not semantics hair-splitting.  It is the plain meaning of plain English.



> In that case Land Value Tax is a single tax, but so are the other taxes when considered individually - even though they coexist and are all levied simultaneously.


Correct.  Historically, LVT advocates have used the term *The* Single Tax, not *A* Single Tax.  This goes all the way back to the 18th century French physiocrats' "l'impot unique," which literally means "the one and only tax."



> Well in Pennsylvania, it's the GOP that wants to end the property tax, including the LVT ad valorem land rent component on unimproved land value, and it is the progressives who are vehemently opposed to abolishing it.


That is because the GOP is the party of privilege, and the land value portion of the property tax is the only tax that threatens privilege.



> But again, you're not talking about Land Value Tax at all, are you.


Stop lying.



> Otherwise you would acknowledge that tax-loving progressives are VERY protective of it, but only as one of many revenue streams.


<sigh>  Lie.  Tax-loving progressives are protective of the *property* tax because they erroneously believe that the *improvement* value portion mainly burdens the rich with their luxury mansions.  They may also be aware that in the USA, the great majority of real estate by value is corporate-owned, and accurately consider the property tax a way of taxing corporations that, unlike other corporate taxes, can't be avoided (this is of course also the actual motive behind all property tax reduction/abolition campaigns).



> You say "they have always attacked *it*", but by *"it"* you don't mean Land Value Tax, but rather Land Value Tax As The ONLY Tax  -- which everyone save geoists is pretty much opposed to.


No.  I mean they always attack LVT when it is proposed as a substitute for property taxes, income taxes, estate taxes, corporate taxes, etc.



> The likes-all-taxes types are exactly that. _They likes all taxes_! That includes the Ad Valorem Tax on Unimproved Land Value (AKA LVT) -- _just not exclusively_, not as a "single tax" -- that's the part that has your panties in a bunch.


No.  The likes-all-taxes type is a political TYPE, not just a person that literally likes all taxes.  The type who tend to like all taxes don't, for example, like poll taxes.  You know this.  You are just deliberately lying about it.



> Oh, by "LVT" did you mean Land Value Tax? Or did you mean to say *Land Value Tax which we will only define as a Land Value Tax when it is the sole source of revenue for the state*? Is that the qualifier that would make Land Value Tax radically different -- making it the only source of revenue for the state?  Or are you still going to cling to the notion that LVT is, exclusively and inherently, a single tax?


LVT has two rather different meanings: 

1. a property tax on the unimproved value of land sites, which might be quite modest and have beneficial but not revolutionary effects, such as seen in the Pennsylvania towns that have used it; and

2. a more ambitious system that recovers the great majority of the publicly created rent of natural resources, including land sites, for public purposes and benefit, replacing some or all of the unjust and harmful taxes that bear on economic activity, which would radically enhance liberty, justice, the economy and society in fundamental ways.

Neither of these meanings implies that no other taxes would be used.  If you want to talk about that idea, which is of more historical interest, say, "_The_ Single Tax."  I am personally not very interested in it, because it identifies a Progressive-Era political movement that ultimately failed.

----------


## Roy L

> Resorting again to calling everything lies.


Lie.  I only identify false statements uttered with intent to deceive as lies.  Because they are.  For example, I did not call your misstatements about the economic implications of elasticity lies, because I knew it was likely you were just ignorant of the subject.



> This is why further discussion is useless.


If you intend to lie, further discussion with me is indeed useless, because I will not let you get away with it.

----------


## Roy L

> You're a clown. And that's no lie.


True, because although you know it is false, you are also well aware that no one will be deceived by it.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Originally Posted by Zippyjuan
> 
> Resorting again to calling everything *lies*.
> 			
> 		
> 
> *Lie.*  I only identify false statements uttered with intent to deceive as *lies.*  Because they are.  For example, I did not call your misstatements about the economic implications of elasticity *lies*, because I knew it was likely you were just ignorant of the subject.
> 
> If you intend to* lie*, further discussion with me is indeed useless, because I will not let you get away with it.


There is that word again.

----------


## Roy L

I missed this before:



> How about some numbers? What would a LVT rate have to be to support our government?


It's not really informative to talk about the rate of LVT, as the rate strongly affects land value (see the Net Present Value Equation).  So, e.g., a 100% LVT rate would reduce land value to the point where a tax of 100% of the land's exchange value would still be less than its rental value.

Think instead about the _amount_ of LVT.



> Granted not all states have the same property tax rates (some don't have any) but on the whole, according to the US Census, second quarter of 2011 property taxes collected for the entire US came to $88.5 billion. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/g11-qtax2.pdf  At the same time, total state tax collections (including property, income, sales, and other taxes) came to $344.5 billion.   So just at the state level, if you wanted to replace all tax revenues and not even think of funding anything at the Federal level, you would have to increase property taxes by 389% or roughly quadruple them.  That would raise $1.378 trillion a year.


Remember, property taxes are levied on both land and improvements, and land only accounts for about 2/3 of total property value.  Raising that much revenue from land alone would radically reduce its exchange value, maybe by more than 90%.



> Now for the sake of using real and not hypothetical numbers, let us assume we want to balance our Federal budget and only collect taxes from land values (using again property tax figures).


Realistically, that is probably not possible.  LVT CAN'T raise more revenue than the total land rent, and a tremendous amount of (especially federal) government spending is not on programs or infrastructure that increase land rents.  Debt interest payments and most military spending, for example, can't be recovered by LVT because they don't contribute anything useful to society.



> Government spending for 2010 was $3.55 trillion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget  I almost messed up and tried to use the $88.5 billion figure but we need to multiply the quarterly figure by four to get an annual number- $354 billion raised per year via property taxes. That means we need ten times the current rate on property taxes to balance the budget and get rid of all other forms of taxes.


Again, you can't think of it in terms of rate because the value numbers would change so much.  Think of it in terms of amount.



> Combine the state and federal figures and you come up with 14 times higher property tax rates meaning if you are currently paying $1000 a year in property taxes, you will need to come up with $14,000 a year instead if you want to go with a single tax. That would cause a lot of present home owners to lose their property because they could no longer afford it.


Wrong.  _They wouldn't be paying any other taxes, and the cost of the goods and services they buy would also decline dramatically._  And note that the higher their current state and local property tax rates, the less of an LVT could be imposed without driving land value below zero.  E.g., someone in CA living on land currently worth $1M with improvements of derisory value and paying $1K in property taxes (i.e., a true ad valorem rate of 0.1%) might end up paying $20K in LVT on the same land worth only $20K (an LVT rate of 100%), while someone in NJ living on land currently worth $100K with improvements worth $150K and paying $5K in property taxes (a property tax rate of 2.0%) might end up paying only $10K in LVT on land worth $10K (also an LVT rate of 100%).



> And renters would be hit as hard too- property taxes are included in you rental rates.


No, they aren't.  Higher property taxes just commensurately reduce the acquisition cost of the property.  We've been through this.



> Plus the flood of people losing homes they once owned would be competing with available rental units increasing demand for them.


No.  Far fewer people would lose their homes in a transition to LVT than have lost them in the recent housing bubble collapse -- which was caused by LACK of LVT.  Add a Recent Purchase Exemption as a transition measure, and the numbers would be microscopic.



> Yes, the figures are not perfect but give us some idea of what sort of tax rate we might be looking at. As a reminder, about 45% of all filers end up owing no income taxes at the Federal level. Those people would not see any offset of the LVT by paying lower taxes in other areas such as income taxes.


Wrong.  They are paying a lot of *other* taxes they would no longer pay under LVT.



> Those who do pay lots of taxes currently would be the ones who would see benefits.


True: working people.



> We would see a consolidation of property ownership into fewer and fewer hands.


Flat false.  Land ownership would be more widely dispersed, with less corporate and speculator hoarding.  People living in trailers on rented pads would be able to afford actual houses.  I do suspect, though, that many apartment condos would revert to unified building ownership and tenancy: owning an apartment makes little financial sense if you aren't using it as a way to get on the landowners' escalator.

----------


## Roy L

> There is that word again.


It is true that evil can only be rationalized, justified and excused by lying.  Understanding will be a lot easier for you once you realize that you have only been able to maintain your false and evil beliefs by lying.

----------


## Roy L

> However, even when you say "the viability of LVT", it begs the question of whether you mean "...as a single tax", or "as a tax".


As a tax.



> That goes right to the salient, relevant core of what was actually being argued, which EW and Roy don't like to acknowledge; namely, that there is *absolutely nothing about LVT that makes it a single tax*.


We don't "acknowledge" it because it is neither salient, relevant, nor the core.  100 years ago, in the days of the Single Tax movement, it was relevant because government was much smaller and there was much more debate about, e.g., tariffs vs. excise taxes, etc.  Nowadays, making abolition of all other taxes part of the LVT debate is just a distraction from the REAL salient, relevant core: justice.  Which is why you are so desperate to do it.



> When people like Roy and EW refer to LVT, they want the Henry George or Roy L. preferred implementation, or geoist proposition of LVT as a single tax, to be simply understood -- even to the point where they will actually say something along the lines of, "Uh, hello? LVT? What is it about SINGLE TAX that you don't understand? We even underlined it for you! Duh." -- as if LVT and SINGLE TAX were somehow synonymous, inherently inseparable or interchangeable as terms when they are anything but.


That was EW, not me.  I don't talk or think in terms of LVT being The Single Tax, other than historically.



> The above is proved by the fact that even the geoist preferred implementation of LVT as a single tax is very much a foot-in-the-door proposition/strategy, since in most cases it is not practical to implement where other taxing mechanisms are already in place.


Nonsense.  It is more practical than any other tax: just eliminate the improvement value portion of the property tax, and raise the rate commensurately.  You can even stop doing assessments on buildings.



> So LVT MUST be implemented as _something other than a single tax_ to begin with in nearly all cases, right alongside other taxes. Their push is to get LVT implemented first, to whatever degree possible. That is where its attractiveness to "never saw a tax they didn't like" types comes into play - and also why you can't do a Vulcan Mind Meld that conflates LVT and SINGLE TAX.  So-called progressives who love all taxes might well be opposed to a SINGLE TAX, while LOVING AND WELCOMING LVT PRECISELY BECAUSE IT IS NOT.


That continues to be a claim you make without -- indeed, flying in the face of -- evidence.



> It's only _after_ initial implementation that geoists THEN will try to do whatever it takes to phase it in, shifting all other taxes to LVT until the ideal "SINGLE TAX" is achieved, and LVT is the only source of revenue.  But that is also the problem, given that the very tax junkies who COULD be convinced to implement LVT are also the same who must be convinced afterward to actually shift other taxes to LVT so that they can be eliminated.


That is a political problem -- almost at the level of personalities -- that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; and as I have no idea how to solve it, I consequently am not very interested in discussing it.  The political problem is refractory: as almost everyone is collecting on privilege of some sort, putting together a coalition against a privilege the majority mistakenly believe they profit from is a Sisyphean challenge.  Education -- getting people to understand LVT's philosophical and economic foundations -- has to come first in any case.



> And this poses another conundrum in what appears to me to be a spirit of Henry George that lingers in most LVT proponents I've encountered.  There is a deep-seated belief that LVT as a SINGLE TAX PANACEA will NATURALLY solve all social ills once fully and properly implemented.


Strawman.  LVT is not a panacea but a PRECONDITION for solving social ills.  Some social and especially economic ills will naturally be resolved with LVT (and many more if you add a UIE).  Others are less directly affected.  No one claims LVT will solve the social ills consequent on, e.g., addictions to drugs, gambling, etc.



> They'll even point to Kiaochow as a shining example, even though there is absolutely no way of knowing whether Kiaochow and its colonists would have thrived and prospered as a major colonial port of call in Asia under any other taxing regime.


Of course there is a way to know: being willing to know facts of economics.



> But that deep-seated belief in LVT naturally solving all social ills (as a single tax) seems to appear also as an unspoken belief that extends even to LVT even as one-of-many taxes in the beginning -- that somehow LVT itself will naturally take over as a single tax, like something analogous to Thier's law, wherein "good taxing mechanisms drive out bad ones" once it is implemented; that somehow the state (or voters) will be made to see the wisdom of making it the only tax once the LVT seed has been planted.   Whether that's an actual belief or not doesn't matter - the way it is sold to others implies as much, and the push is the same, regardless.


Blatant strawman.



> To me that's no different than the Federal Reserve System, Social Security or Obamacare...


Ignorant, dishonest nonsense.



> the strategy being to get it passed first, get it rooted so deeply that so many dependencies are created that it can't be killed without enormous repercussions,


Just like emancipating slaves.  Try killing THAT reform without enormous repercussions....



> and then clean up the mess ("perfect it") later once the parasitic monster takes on a life of its own.


It is LVT that *kills* the parasitic monster.

----------


## Roy L

> Why, so a jackass like you can steal my home out from under me *when I worked my whole life to get it* and be able to retire there?


Can't you see?  You had to work your whole life to buy a home only because you have been a victim of landowner privilege your whole life.  So now, after a lifetime toiling on the treadmill, laboring to raise up the rich, greedy parasites riding the escalator that the treadmill powers, you have finally scrambled up onto the escalator yourself.  And so now, when I propose to stop both the treadmill and the escalator, so that all may climb as far as they will by their own efforts, you demand that the treadmill be kept running so that your escalator ride will not be cut short.  And so all future generations must toil on the treadmill so that the previous generation can collect on their escalator rides...

That is the evil genius of privilege.  First, it forces its victims to participate in it in sheer self-defense.  Then it makes them dependent on it.  And finally, it recruits them as its most fanatical defenders.

----------

