We Urgently Need To Revert To Classical Economics

You need to calm down.
I think a lot of evil could have been prevented if people hadn't been so willing to calm down when that evil was being done.

So no, I don't need to calm down.
Especially because you are the one who wants to do injustice to people.
You know that is a lie. Injustice is rewards not commensurate with contributions made and penalties not commensurate with deprivations inflicted. That is what YOU advocate through the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners, not I.
What you accuse me of lying is a premise I have never accepted.
You lied when you claimed you would not care if someone started charging you rent for sunlight. It was just a flat-out LIE.
Sunlight and air are commodities that are unlimited.
Wrong. Sunlight and air are not commodities (compressed air is, but I assume you are talking about atmospheric air), and nothing is unlimited (except, of course, the stupidity and dishonesty of anti-LVT liars). And even if they were unlimited, making them into property would limit them in a hurry.
If they become scarce then we would need to enforce property rights for them as well.
Oh, really now? Human organs suitable for transplants are scarce. Very scarce. Do we need to make them into property and enforce property rights for them, too? Beautiful 12-year-old blonde girls are scarce. Are you going to make them into property? How about facts that refute the arguments for LVT? Those are scarce as hen's teeth. Do we need to enforce property rights for them, too?

In any case, you are just trying to evade responsibility for your lie. You said you don't care if someone made the sun into their private property. You were lying. Now you are saying, "but no one can make the sun into private property because it isn't scarce," ignoring the fact that the very reason you would mind someone making it into their private property is that that would MAKE it scarce.
This is where you contradict your self.
Lie.
If land is not scarce commodity so is any capital good.
?? Cannot parse. Scarcity has nothing to do with it. The relevant fact is that people are naturally at liberty to use land, and appropriating the land as private property removes their rights to liberty without just compensation. People are NOT naturally at liberty to use capital, as it first has to be supplied by its producer.
As far as being made by nature that is a non argument.
No, it is merely a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality that conclusively refutes all your arguments, and that you are non-capable of answering.
Everything comes from the land.
No, it most certainly does not. Your stupid, evil lies, for example, do not come from the land. So stop blaming your stupid, evil lies on the land. They come from YOU, and nowhere else. Blaming the land for them is grotesque and obscene as well as dishonest and evil.
So again that would negate property rights if we allow your premises to stand.
Absurd and dishonest non sequitur. Makin' $#!+ up about what my premises are is not an argument, sorry.

Products of labor are not land and do not come from the land. They are produced by human labor. If you want to insist on your stupid and dishonest charade of claiming "everything comes from the land," that just shifts the terminology. Fine. Instead of just using the honest terms, "land" and "capital," we can instead distinguish between "things that come from the land" with the assistance of human labor and those that come from the land without any assistance from human labor. As the former are not things people would otherwise be at liberty to use, they are rightly property. As the latter are things that people WOULD otherwise be at liberty to use, making them into property removes people's rights to liberty, and therefore can't be rightful.
Now as far as community made goods. We are going to exclude goods that can be privatized such as police, courts and etc.
No, we aren't, any more than we are going to exclude the bread we take home from the supermarket from our grocery bill because we could make bread at home or get it from a food bank. Even assuming the police, courts, etc. can be privatized without sacrificing their raison d'etre -- justice -- (which they can't), until they ARE privatized, we need a way to pay for them.
Since if they can be privatized it is moot to claim we need to pay taxes for them.
No, that's just an absurd and outrageous lie. What's really moot is your claim that they can be privatized: how is that workin' out for ya in Somalia? Until they HAVE been privatized, we DO need to pay taxes for them.
We could just as well privatize them and not pay taxes.
Even assuming you could privatize them (you can't), you would then just be paying for them some other way -- and probably paying more for less.
Considering that taxes are unjust in the first place guess where I stand.
Blatant question begging fallacy.
So then the only goods left for which you claim LVT are the benefits derived from people cooperating. In this case one can not quantify that
Wrong. Land value quantifies it very exactly. It is identically equal to the minimum value of the benefits the landowner expects to take from other people and not repay in taxes.
and even if you could there is no justice in requiring people to repay on benefits they reap if they taken nothing from you.
They have taken my liberty to use the land from me, stop lying. They have taken everyone else's liberty to use the land from them, too, stop lying. They have taken away our opportunity to benefit from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides and the physical advantages nature provides at that location, stop lying.
 
Jesus said the jubilee is fulfilled. Period.
Garbage. Please point to where the word, "jubilee" is used in that passage, or where it mentions returning the land to the families who initially held it as specified in Leviticus. Point to where it says debts will be forgiven. Quote where the jubilee is described in Leviticus as the year the blind would recover their sight.

Thought not.
Stop using the jubilee as arguments for your version of collectivism.
Stop lying about the word of God to serve your god, Mammon.
 
Injustice is rewards not commensurate with contributions made...

Nice leftist-collectivist sentiment - the stuff of labor unions and Marxist socialism. I'm pretty sure it was Marx who first touched on the notion of injustice with regard to rewards vs. contributions, with a collectivist presumption regarding distribution of "social goods", the initial principle being, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution" (later 'need', as the regime works its wonderful magic throughout all the land).

That little sentiment of yours quoted above is the best argument against the Geo-socialist LVT rent tax yet, because you are specifically calling for a system wherein collectivist leeches and parasites are all equal in rewards, even though many of them contributed nothing but their "deprivations", which required "just compensation".

Yeah, meeza hatesa your Geo-Socialist gubmint.
 
Nice leftist-collectivist sentiment - the stuff of labor unions and Marxist socialism.

Since when has justice been the preserve of the left?

So you support the injustice of unchecked runaway Capitalism. Wow.

Marx was not the first to see injustices in a society. Henry George did and he opposed Marx.

How can a tax shift be socialist? Dugh! Look below even the right wing UK Conservative party have an LVT lobby.

Good news from across the pond.....

LIB DEMS ALTER
Website: http://libdemsalter.org.uk/en/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/libdemsalter
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/LibDemsALTER

OTHER PARTY LVT CAMPAIGNS
Green: http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/news/show/6530/greens-launch-land-tax-plans-...
Labour: http://www.labourland.org/
Conservative: http://toryreformgroup.tumblr.com/post/17259025518/david-cowan-progressive-co...

LVT BILL PRESENTED TO UK PARLIAMENT
Caroline Lucas from the Green Party has proposed replacing Council Tax and Business Rates with land based taxes.
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/landvaluetax.html

This would be the first step towards a full and comprehensive Land Tax.
http://libdemsalter.org.uk/en/article/2012/566443/baby-steps-to-wealth-tax-by...

The bill will be voted on its Second Reading on 9th November 2012.
 
Last edited:
That has been explained.

LVT reclaims community created economic growth that soaks into the land crystallizing as LAND VALUES. That is where land values come from - not the sky. The landowner did not created them, the community did. This is used for community services. Which are...what we have now: army, navy, police, schools, etc. Welfare spending will diminish as enterprise is encouraged and speculation discouraged.

It's not a service if it's forced upon individuals. In that case it's exploitation/slavery.

As an aside, what do you think about mutualism? It bypasses all the state stuff.

I do not know what you are saying. Privately created wealth should stay private. Income tax, Sales Tax, etc, are eliminated as they are taxes on production and trade. LVT, a tax shift, can fit into any ism, except probably not North Korea. What ism do you want? LVT will fit into it.

It's still a tax. Taxation is extortion.

The wealth is already socialized. It stays socialized - not appropriated by private individuals or organizations.

Where does the wealth originate from and how is it already socialized? :confused:
 
No taxes --> no civilization.

This is perhaps the root of the disagreement. Advocates of Liberty believe that Civilization is the spontaneous order that emerges from the voluntary exchanges of each individual.

A little thought experiment might help. If govt. is the source of civilization, then govt. institutions like prisons should be paragons of civilization. Just take the prisoners out and substitute a random selection from the public and voila you have perfect civilization.

The real kicker here is that the "thought experiment" has in fact been done many times. What do you think your "civilized" govt. did with the prisoners it removed?

RoyL your LVT rhetoric "greedy, idle, privileged parasites" is perilously close to the "Final Solution".
 
What happened to the false left/right dichotomy?

Look below even the right wing UK Conservative party have an LVT lobby.

C'mon dude, you know that's not a fair comparison. Right wing parties in most of Europe are more left leaning than Democrats in the USA.

Right wing in Europe has shifted to the left, as it has in North America. Just look at the origins of the Neocons.
More dependance on the state has been the emphasis… a dictatorship by consent like Huxley's Brave New World.
 
I think a lot of evil could have been prevented if people hadn't been so willing to calm down when that evil was being done.

So no, I don't need to calm down.

I know I feel the same way. I look at you with complete disgust. For the benefit of the doubt I am going to continue to argue.

You know that is a lie. Injustice is rewards not commensurate with contributions made and penalties not commensurate with deprivations inflicted. That is what YOU advocate through the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners, not I.

Yes that is exactly what I advocate. I do not advocate punishment based legal system. I want reparations instead of penalties. If a man takes something away, I want that returned. The penalty can only come to his reputation not to his body. Now as far as rewards go I will not even entertain the idea that justice is rewards commensurate with contributions. The value put to rewards and the contributions are completely subjective. As such it can not be used to objectively define justice.

You lied when you claimed you would not care if someone started charging you rent for sunlight. It was just a flat-out LIE.

Wrong. Sunlight and air are not commodities (compressed air is, but I assume you are talking about atmospheric air), and nothing is unlimited (except, of course, the stupidity and dishonesty of anti-LVT liars). And even if they were unlimited, making them into property would limit them in a hurry.

Oh, really now? Human organs suitable for transplants are scarce. Very scarce. Do we need to make them into property and enforce property rights for them, too? Beautiful 12-year-old blonde girls are scarce. Are you going to make them into property? How about facts that refute the arguments for LVT? Those are scarce as hen's teeth. Do we need to enforce property rights for them, too?

In any case, you are just trying to evade responsibility for your lie. You said you don't care if someone made the sun into their private property. You were lying. Now you are saying, "but no one can make the sun into private property because it isn't scarce," ignoring the fact that the very reason you would mind someone making it into their private property is that that would MAKE it scarce.

Yes I would be ok with someone homesteading the sun and the air. I don't see how it is possible with our technology at the present. So I would not accept any rents until it is possible.

Human organs and bodies are the property of their owners. Only the owners of their property can give it away. And absolutely property rights should exist for them. That means you can not murder me or tax me.

?? Cannot parse. Scarcity has nothing to do with it. The relevant fact is that people are naturally at liberty to use land, and appropriating the land as private property removes their rights to liberty without just compensation. People are NOT naturally at liberty to use capital, as it first has to be supplied by its producer.

You not at liberty to use it until someone puts their labor into it. It is just for the land to go to the person who put work into it instead of the latecomer.

No, it is merely a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality that conclusively refutes all your arguments, and that you are non-capable of answering.

No, it most certainly does not. Your stupid, evil lies, for example, do not come from the land. So stop blaming your stupid, evil lies on the land. They come from YOU, and nowhere else. Blaming the land for them is grotesque and obscene as well as dishonest and evil.

Ideas and words are not scarce that is the reason they are not property. I do not support intellectual property.

Absurd and dishonest non sequitur. Makin' $#!+ up about what my premises are is not an argument, sorry.
What are your premises? List them and I will show you how I am right. Instead of hiding and making me guess at them.
Products of labor are not land and do not come from the land. They are produced by human labor. If you want to insist on your stupid and dishonest charade of claiming "everything comes from the land," that just shifts the terminology. Fine. Instead of just using the honest terms, "land" and "capital," we can instead distinguish between "things that come from the land" with the assistance of human labor and those that come from the land without any assistance from human labor. As the former are not things people would otherwise be at liberty to use, they are rightly property. As the latter are things that people WOULD otherwise be at liberty to use, making them into property removes people's rights to liberty, and therefore can't be rightful.

So is the land that had a fence put on it, that a had a hole dug in it, that had a seed planted in it, that was fertilized, that had a house put on it. All of that land had labor mixed into it. All of that land is property. All of that land can be considered a good that had labor mixed into it.

No, we aren't, any more than we are going to exclude the bread we take home from the supermarket from our grocery bill because we could make bread at home or get it from a food bank. Even assuming the police, courts, etc. can be privatized without sacrificing their raison d'etre -- justice -- (which they can't), until they ARE privatized, we need a way to pay for them.

No, that's just an absurd and outrageous lie. What's really moot is your claim that they can be privatized: how is that workin' out for ya in Somalia? Until they HAVE been privatized, we DO need to pay taxes for them.

Bread has nothing to do with your claim that society produces goods that people use. Society gets a benefit from every single individual in it. It is a subjective benefit and as such it can not be taxes. My participation in society as a peaceful individual brings peace to society as much as they bring peace to me. As such those goods are equal. A bread seller gives me as much benefit as my money gives him. Everything is a equal subjective trade. As such you can not levy a tax on that. Even if trades were not equal but they must according to basic logic they are still just since they are done voluntarily.
Even assuming you could privatize them (you can't), you would then just be paying for them some other way -- and probably paying more for less.


Wrong. Land value quantifies it very exactly. It is identically equal to the minimum value of the benefits the landowner expects to take from other people and not repay in taxes.

I am going to abandon the argument from practical stand point because of two reasons. It is too easy to win and second this type of argument can only be won from a moral stand point.

They have taken my liberty to use the land from me, stop lying. They have taken everyone else's liberty to use the land from them, too, stop lying. They have taken away our opportunity to benefit from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides and the physical advantages nature provides at that location, stop lying.

No one taken this liberty from you, you never had it in the first place. You have liberty to take unused land. Stop being a parasite, trying to take something for nothing.
 
Nice leftist-collectivist sentiment
No, that's nothing but another stupid lie from you. You always have to lie about what I have plainly written. ALWAYS.
the stuff of labor unions and Marxist socialism.
No, that's nothing but another stupid lie from you. You always have to lie about what I have plainly written. ALWAYS.
I'm pretty sure it was Marx who first touched on the notion of injustice with regard to rewards vs. contributions,
But you are objectively wrong, as the ideas of reward commensurate with contribution made and punishment commensurate with wrong inflicted -- i.e., JUST deserts -- are fundamental to the concept of justice, and are as old as the concept of justice.
with a collectivist presumption regarding distribution of "social goods",
No, that is just another stupid lie unrelated to what I wrote. Your "argument" consists of makin' some stupid $#!+ up and dishonestly attributing it to me.

You just can't help heaping disgrace upon yourself.
the initial principle being, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution"
No, that's a lie, because people's contributions are what they have initially, through having produced them. So you have to start with those who have made a contribution. What YOU are advocating is "FROM each according to his contribution TO each according to his ownership of government-enforced privileges like land titles."
(later 'need', as the regime works its wonderful magic throughout all the land).
No, that's just more stupid lying from you, with no relation to what I wrote. Stop telling such stupid lies.
That little sentiment of yours quoted above
You didn't quote any sentiment of mine above. You are just baldly lying. That is the point. You haven't done anything but baldly lie about what I plainly wrote. You have no facts, no logic, no arguments of any kind to offer, so all you can do is lie about what I have written in clear, grammatical English.
is the best argument against the Geo-socialist LVT rent tax yet, because you are specifically calling for a system wherein collectivist leeches and parasites are all equal in rewards,
No, that's just you telling stupid lies again. All you can ever do is tell stupid lies about what I have plainly written. You have decided to serve Evil, so you have no choice but to lie.

What I call for is recognition of the equal human rights of all, and equal compensation for the forcible removal of those rights. The ADDITIONAL rewards people would EARN through their contributions of labor and capital to production of goods and services are OVER AND ABOVE that modest, universal compensation, which you know is limited to free, secure, exclusive tenure on just enough good land to live on, in order to prevent landholders from enslaving honest working people. You just want government to empower landholders to enslave honest working people, as they have done throughout history wherever government has not interceded massively on their behalf.
even though many of them contributed nothing but their "deprivations", which required "just compensation".
Forcibly removing people's rights to liberty requires just compensation. Those who contributed nothing more than their peaceful acquiescence in the removal of their liberty would receive no more than the minimal access to opportunity ensured by the universal individual exemption. You know this. You just want to be able to remove others' rights to liberty and not make just compensation, because you want to steal from them and enslave them. It is really just that simple.
Yeah, meeza hatesa your Geo-Socialist gubmint.
You hate liberty (for anyone but yourself), justice, and especially truth, as proved above. I know. You have made that extremely clear.
 
It's not a service if it's forced upon individuals.
Who is being "forced" to deny others their liberty to use the land?
In that case it's exploitation/slavery.
Look at the condition of the landless in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY where private landowning is well established, but government does not intercede massively on behalf of the landless to rescue them from the exploitation and enslavement inherent in it. The notion that LVT could ever "exploit/enslave" landholders by comparison to how landowning exploits and enslaves the landless is absurd and grotesque.
As an aside, what do you think about mutualism? It bypasses all the state stuff.
Fine, as long as everyone agrees. They won't.
It's still a tax. Taxation is extortion.
Taxation is necessary if we are going to have a civilization. See my explanation in post #135 of how LVT is fundamentally different from other taxes. Other taxes may effectively be extortion, but LVT is a voluntary, beneficiary-pay, market-based, value-for-value transaction, not extortion. It is landowning that is extortion, as proved in post #6.
Where does the wealth originate from
The productive.
and how is it already socialized? :confused:
It exists as the value of an opportunity or economic advantage that all have equal liberty rights to access, and that can't be recovered by the productive individuals who created it.
 
Taxation is necessary if we are going to have a civilization.

A state-run civilization, yes. Civilization can easily exist without taxation. It just requires of members of said society to have the necessary character traits.
 
This is perhaps the root of the disagreement.
No, the root is actually deeper than that, in the concept of valid property rights.
Advocates of Liberty
You mean advocates of the enslavement of the landless by landholders, don't you?
believe that Civilization is the spontaneous order that emerges from the voluntary exchanges of each individual.
But in fact, it never has, and never will.
A little thought experiment might help. If govt. is the source of civilization, then govt. institutions like prisons should be paragons of civilization.
I see. So, if a cow is the source of milk, its stomach should be milk, its hooves should be milk, etc.?

How many years did you have to study to be able to make your brain do funny things like that?
Just take the prisoners out and substitute a random selection from the public and voila you have perfect civilization.
Idiocy.
The real kicker here is that the "thought experiment" has in fact been done many times.
Name one.
What do you think your "civilized" govt. did with the prisoners it removed?
No such event ever took place.
RoyL your LVT rhetoric "greedy, idle, privileged parasites" is perilously close to the "Final Solution".
Garbage. They can always just choose not to be greedy, idle, privileged parasites, same as slave owners could. Why is it always the perpetrators and beneficiaries of unjust privilege that we must be careful not to harm, rather than the victims?
 
What happened to the false left/right dichotomy?
It's a continuum rather than a dichotomy, it means egalitarian/elitist, and it's alive and well.
Right wing parties in most of Europe are more left leaning than Democrats in the USA.
Would you take William F Buckley's word as a right-wing American conservative?
 
But you are objectively wrong, as the ideas of reward commensurate with contribution made and punishment commensurate with wrong inflicted -- i.e., JUST deserts -- are fundamental to the concept of justice, and are as old as the concept of justice.

Just deserts my ass - the rallying cries of class warfare statist-collectivist mass murderers like Stalin, Mao and Polpot (with whom I have you grouped).

...people's contributions are what they have initially, through having produced them. So you have to start with those who have made a contribution.

People's contributions are what what they OWN, regardless of whether or not they produced anything at all. I form a partnership and "contribute" a computer, which I did not produce. And for that matter, I can form a firm and contribute nothing at all beyond my will and a bunch of contracts and promises, as I act as nothing more than a go-between operating out of an empty shell. And I WILL OWN IT. I can hire laborers to work for me. They own their labor, which they rent to me for a time, as a factor production, at a price, which is their ONLY profit. They are contributing to the success of the firm. In fact, their labors may be responsible for 90% of the success of the firm. And despite these MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS, they are not entitled to any of the firm's profits. They are only entitled to payment for what we contracted for. That is because individuals ARE FIRMS, in and of themselves -- operating as privileged entities within other firms, without ANY claims to ownership thereof.

So fuck your ideological notions of "contribution" as being the meaningful metric and starting point for rewards determination. OWNERSHIP, and ownership rights (NOT privileges) are key when determining rewards. NOT contributions.

If I contract for a firm for minimum wage, and then do Amazing Things that cause that firm to suddenly go Fortune 500, and my contributions were such that they were singularly responsible for 99.999% of the profits and success of that firm, what rewards am I entitled to? I am entitled to the paycheck I contracted for, and nothing more. Anything the OWNERS of the firm want to give me, over and above what I contracted for, is gravy to me, and NOT REQUIRED by them. I can be a typical leftist laborer and whine about how I am being exploited, and wail about how my rewards are not at all commensurate with my contributions, but the fact that I was STUPID enough to CONTRIBUTE out of all proportion to what I contracted to receive (assuming I actually did, and it wasn't just my utter vanity speaking) is MY PROBLEM. The fact that I didn't negotiate better terms, or withhold that kind of performance without a better contract, is my lunacy, my stupidity, because WHAT I OWNED (my labor, my performance, my superior contribution) I sold for a pittance.

So no, you are wrong in the absolute. We do NOT "start with those who have made a contribution" when determining rewards. That's leftist Marxist Socialist muddled reasoning. Rather we start with OWNERSHIP, in light of contracts, which includes contribution-related elements like consideration and performance over time.

What YOU are advocating is "FROM each according to his contribution TO each according to his ownership...

CORRECT. More or less. More accurately it would read:

From each according to the ownership (of his contribution), to each according to the terms and performance of his voluntary contract.

That is no different, in principle, than what YOU are advocating. The only difference is the shift in ownership (of land rents); that the state (commune-ity/taxing jurisdiction), assume collectivized "for profit" OWNERSHIP (on behalf of Da Peephole) of the economic rents on all land.

And note that Marx, Stalin, Mao and Polpot all saw private ownership, in one form or another, as the root of all evil, with the shortest distance between two points on a problem-solution line being nothing more than a change in ownership, with "just deserts" used as a rationale for collective ownership. Your vilification of private ownership and advocacy for socialized wealth and socialized ownership (of anything), puts you squarely in their camp, regardless of your specific differences.

Back to contributions vs. actual ownership:

Under our current regime (which is getting more and more socialist all the time), police, fire, road workers, etc., ALL make "contributions". However, those contributions are like the contributions of laborers I hire in my firm. Their services are contracted for a price, and are not for profit to the state, because the state, contrary to your fucked up paradigm, IS NOT A FIRM, and should never (my wonderful righteous goodly paradigm) behave as one, because that presents an untenable conflict of interest, given the powers of the state.

It is only by virtue of SOCIALIST STATE OWNERSHIP OF LAND RENTS that the state can be seen as making more than mere contributions, which are contracted as needed and paid for out of the public treasury (which ALWAYS originates privately). You want that changed such that the Collectivized Public at Large (read=all PRIVATE individuals, regardless of individual contributions, which are NEVER EQUAL) are equal shareholders, entitled to a return on land rents. It is in that way that you propose that the state be seen as an active market participant -- an owner of interest, for profit -- as it CONTRACTS with those who desire to shop at its cute little Land Rents Store.

A circular presumption of STATE OWNERSHIP OF LAND RENTS is the ONLY way you can look at someone who is not paying land rents to the state and compare them to a thief who is stealing from an actual store without paying. The "contributions of others" (police, fire, road workers, infrastructure builders, etc.,) is only one rationale you use for state ownership of land rents; NO differently than a fucking Marxist could justify seizing my firm and redistributing its profits to my employees -- the "real contributors" -- the new owners, whose rewards (change of ownership, "just deserts") are rationalized on the basis of their COLLECTIVE contributions (public and private, no less).

Have a nice Marxist Lite. On crack.
 
Last edited:
wrong. The first known tax was in Egypt, circa 3000-2800 BC. (relatively recent in the grand scheme of civilization)

3000 B.C. gets us pretty close to as far back as written history can take us. So we wouldn't have a way to know about a tax before that.

But whatever was the first time anyone stole from anyone, I'd call that the first tax.
 
3000 B.C. gets us pretty close to as far back as written history can take us. So we wouldn't have a way to know about a tax before that.
True. But clay tablets from Lagash dating back to nearly 6000 BC have been interpreted as tax records:

https://secure.sauder.ubc.ca/re_creditprogram/course.../carlson.pdf

Taxation is definitely as old as civilization, because civilization cannot exist without taxes.
But whatever was the first time anyone stole from anyone, I'd call that the first tax.
But you would be lying. Private theft -- which certainly long predates humanity, let alone civilization, and probably predates the first land animals -- is not a source of public revenue. You know this.
 
Taxation is definitely as old as civilization, because civilization cannot exist without taxes.
And slavery is as old as civilization. Therefore, civilization cannot exist without slavery. Ditto for subjugation of women. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
wrong. The first known tax was in Egypt, circa 3000-2800 BC. (relatively recent in the grand scheme of civilization)
Nope. Civilization was extremely rare before about 4000 BC, and some of the earliest known records, clay tablets excavated at Lagash, are thought to have been tax records:

https://secure.sauder.ubc.ca/re_creditprogram/course.../carlson.pdf

Taxation is as old as civilization, because civilization cannot exist without taxes.
No, traits like rationality and morality.
As long as people think they own land, rationality and morality are not among the options.
 
Back
Top