We Urgently Need To Revert To Classical Economics

[EcoWarrier]

I'm not going to bother coming back to look for any responses to this, but your theory of how self-ownership is a contradiction is crap.

You got it wrong. Geonomics is just a tax shift. Nothing but. Land ownership, politics and business stays the same. Own land by all means. LVT merely reclaims publicly created wealth that soaked into the land crystallizing as land values, for public services. Leaving private wealth alone and in the pockets of the individual.

Commonly created wealth is used for common services. Simple. Common sense.

 

[Roy L]

You actually typed that with a straight face, too. The idea that the purpose of taxes is to "create and encourage" is clear leftist/statist political indoctrination. Sad but true.

He didn't say that was the purpose of taxes. He said taxes confer that power.

So you lied about what he said. Again. Sad but true.

 

[Roy L]

I'm not going to bother coming back to look for any responses to this,

Of course not. When you encounter facts that prove you wrong, just refuse to know them. Simple.

but your theory of how self-ownership is a contradiction is crap.

Ooo, cogent.

I own myself, and I do indeed have the right to sell myself into slavery if I want to.

But in fact, you don't.

If you claim I don't, it means you think you have some sort of ownership stake in me,

Hilarious non sequitur fallacy.

If I say you don't have a right to sell your kids or your neighbors into slavery, does that mean I think I have an ownership stake in them, too...??

I never cease to be impressed by the total absence of even the most elementary logical ability among LVT opponents.

and that's a slavery I didn't even consent to. Massah.

I hope you are proud. Everyone who read your asinine "argument" is dumber for the experience.

 

[SewrRatt]

And yet I'm not the idiot who equated a denial of control over the self with a denial of control over others. Talk about a non sequitur. You're not even serious about all this shit you're spewing, you're just a run-of-the-mill sophist who learned a little logic by accident and now misuses it as entertainment to troll message boards rather than using it properly to find truth. The kind that's always accusing others of committing the logical fallacies that YOU are actually committing. The kind that thrives on suckers trying to seriously engage your spiel because they believe you're serious.

Now that I've informed ya'll that you're posting in a troll thread, I'm going to move along. I'd recommend not dignifying any more of these guys' nonsense with any response at all.

 

[EcoWarrier]

< snip lots of personal vitriol >

to find truth.

Roy found the truth a long time ago, that is clear - which is different to your type of truth. You even keep yourself at a disadvantage, as you have not seen the truth. Open your mind and use a little logic and just plain common sense. It is not difficult.

< snip more personal vitriol >

 

[Steven Douglas]

He didn't say that was the purpose of taxes. He said taxes confer that power.

Yeah? Well, what about this post?

 

[Roy L]

And yet I'm not the idiot who equated a denial of control over the self with a denial of control over others.

Nor am I, so who's the idiot? Control is not ownership, duh.

Talk about a non sequitur. You're not even serious about all this shit you're spewing, you're just a run-of-the-mill sophist who learned a little logic by accident and now misuses it as entertainment to troll message boards rather than using it properly to find truth.

Lie.

The kind that's always accusing others of committing the logical fallacies that YOU are actually committing.

Huge lie.

The kind that thrives on suckers trying to seriously engage your spiel because they believe you're serious.

I am.

Now that I've informed ya'll that you're posting in a troll thread, I'm going to move along. I'd recommend not dignifying any more of these guys' nonsense with any response at all.

Too bad you can't refute a single sentence of it.

 

[Roy L]

Yeah? Well, what about this post?

Huh? How is that relevant to your error? I saw you posted your tsunami of evil, dishonest, toxic, anti-rational, anti-factual, anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-economic swill again. I just haven't felt well enough to expose myself to it long enough to demolish it. Maybe when I'm feeling better.

 

[Roy L]

The Free Hornet has posed some interesting, thoughtful and respectful questions, so I would like to respond even though I'm not the superhero in question.

Would a superhero address some questions from a late thread comer?

1) Why not link to the Wikipedia article (Land Value Tax) on it?

Because the response is, "Wikipedia is your source?? LOL!"

As poor as that link may be, it is ten times better than the one-sided descriptions by the proponents of LVT who overpromise and underdeliver.

What have we overpromised and under-delivered?

Also, rectify differences between the wiki ("Requires clear ownership [of land]") and the proselytization of Roy ("[Owning land] is legalized theft").

There's a bit of a risk of equivocation there. The "clear ownership" of the wiki statement would more accurately be called, "clear legal entitlement to exclusive tenure." As a matter of convenient legal form, morally unownable resources that all have equal rights to use (e.g., the broadcast spectrum, navigable waterways, the atmosphere, etc. as well as land sites) are often administered as publicly -- i.e., government -- owned. OTOH, what I meant by "owning land" being legalized theft is the kind of title that entails no obligation to others, that only correctly applies to products of labor, and that feudal libertarians erroneously imagine morally invalidates LVT.

Are you advocating an ideology or a revenue system?

A revenue system based on an ideology. Call the ideology geoism: the view that all human beings have equal rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor, and that an important implication of these rights is that violation or removal of one's right to liberty through exclusive land tenure arrangements must rightly be compensated through both payments by the landholder to the community of those he excludes, and compensatory restoration of the individual's liberty to access and use land through either a uniform, universal, individual land tax exemption ("UIE") for enough good land to live on, or (IMO second best) an equivalent uniform, universal, individual cash land rent distribution ("dividend").

Although I agree you might need both (especially statists who love those revenue systems), it is too mucked up for me to understand what you're getting at.

I hope the above makes it clearer.

<LVT_protest>I may have to pay your stinking LVT, but I don't have to agree with your BS!</LVT_protest>

We fervently hope that you will think all this through yourself. "In nothing trust to me." -- Henry George.

2a) What do you want the government to do regardless of how the income is raised?

There is no uniform position on that question.

Hopefully you are libertarians or minarchists or something.

Many geoists have a strong libertarian bent, others are quite comfortable with large governments. There is an argument that if an LVT-funded public expenditure will pay for itself in public benefits that people willingly pay for in land rent, why not do it? It makes society unambiguously wealthier, unlike leaving the land rent in the landholder's hands or distributing it via a citizens' dividend. In the latter case we would just be trusting that people would not squander the money wastefully or even use it destructively.

My own view is that much of what government currently spends money on is only justified by the need to rescue people, especially the landless, from the harmful effects of removing their rights to liberty through private landowning. Restore their rights to liberty, and you can abolish most "social" spending, as people won't need it any more. Most other government spending is just wasteful and corrupt, like corporate subsidies and bailouts, military and other procurement, interest on bank-created debt money, etc. and could be eliminated to society's general benefit.

There is never justice or fairness in coercive redistribution.

Sure there is, if the original distribution was coercive, as it always is under private landowning.

Is it fair if one family gets more free fruit because they had twins and the other family had one really fat baby?

If the free fruit is compensation for removal of the babies' rights, then yes, it is most certainly fair, because the twins had rights removed from twice as many people as the fat baby.

2b) Can you justify taxation... AT ALL??!!

Of course. And it is certainly far easier to justify taxation that recovers the value government spending creates to fund that spending than it is to justify taxation that confiscates privately created value in order to give a welfare subsidy to wealthy, greedy, idle, privileged parasites.

If I wander onto unoccupied state park territory and start living off the land and living in a ramshackle dwelling, then it could be said maybe that I own nothing and owe nothing. True or False?

Depends. State parks are generally desirable because others are being kept off. They are owed compensation for that. But there may be marginal land there that no more than one person would be willing to pay to use, and could thus be used tax-free even if you didn't have your universal individual exemption (UIE).

3) If you can't own land, what else can't you own?

Anything whose ownership would deprive others of liberty they would otherwise have. Note that this specifically does not include products of labor, as no one would be at liberty to use them if their producers had not produced them.

Land versus stuff is just an artificial distinction.

Who says the distinction is land vs "stuff"? It's land vs products of labor, and there is nothing artifical about it.

Land is just the crusty stuff we presently store on top of the mantle.

We do no such thing, and you know it. First lie.

My neighbors would be pissed if I rented some land and took all the crust with me.

There are laws against nuisances, laws to ensure land uses are compatible with nearby uses, and under LVT there would be a special "severance" tax on those whose use of land reduced its value, such as by extracting minerals, toxic contamination, etc.

Drop the focus on land, land, land.

There are two excellent reasons to keep the focus on land, land, land: the Law of Rent, and the Henry George Theorem.

The Law of Rent says, in effect, that the productive -- working people, entrepreneurs, and investors in productive capital goods -- are all on a treadmill, laboring just to stay in the same place, while landowners are riding up on an escalator that the treadmill powers. This is because all the additional production that capital investment, education, etc. make possible tends to increase on advantageous land much more than marginal land, and is consequently appropriated by landowners rather than going to the workers and investors who produced it.

The Henry George Theorem says that the treadmill and the escalator also exist wrt taxes and government spending: as landowners can charge everyone else full market value for access to the services and infrastructure government provides, all government spending on services and infrastructure goes to landowners, not to the putative beneficiaries. It would be impossible to over-emphasize the importance of this point: the productive currently pay the taxes that fund government spending on services and infrastructure, and must then pay land rent to landowners for access to the same services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for. The productive must pay for government TWICE so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for nothing.

Does it matter if the gubblemint defends and builds roads to my land or my pile of sugar?

Yes, because if you own a pile of sugar, but do not own the land it is sitting on, then you are ALREADY PAYING A LANDOWNER FOR THE GOVERNMENT ROADS AND DEFENSE SERVICES, which consequently make the land worth more, but do not make the pile of sugar worth more.

GET IT?

But if I defend that sugar myself...
Provide for its transportation...
What right do you have to partake in it?

[silly images snipped]
The sugar was not already there, ready to use, with no help from anyone. The land was.

GET IT??

Additionally, here is a link for discussion:

Was there a particular argument there that you wanted to discuss?

What is the plan to end/minimize the LVT???

You mean, what is the plan to end/minimize justice??

 

[Steven Douglas]

I saw you posted your tsunami of evil, dishonest, toxic, anti-rational, anti-factual, anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-economic swill again. I just haven't felt well enough to expose myself to it long enough to demolish it. Maybe when I'm feeling better.

Figured it was something along those lines. The closer to the truth it is, the more dissonant chords it strikes in your nerves, and the more self-conflicted and worse it makes you feel, as every red flag inside you is raised in denialistic revulsion. Side effect of cognitive dissonance and all that.

As a collectivist at your very core, you don't deal well at all with individual rights except as they are collectivized - and rented out to whomever will pay greatest tribute to the collective. You have to constantly rationalize fucking over the average individual for the 'greater good', as you are forced to make value decisions on other people's behalf (e.g., "good enough land to live on", or "Granny needs to make way for 'more productive hands'." ).

In the end, you don't even deal with the fact that a massively publicly traded Walmart, while still technically on 'equal' legal footing with Joe's Trading Post...is in reality on artificially superior footing at all times. Nobody is offering tax abatements, exemptions, Enterprise Zones and other subsidies to Joe for his DISPENSABLE trading post. He's small potatoes. And individuals? Fuck them, if they want power they should form a collective, just like the other political gangsters.

But GO HERE, and look at just how ONE major corporation manages to game the system and gain artificial market advantages over others -- including gaming and avoiding taxes, including those on land values, among others.

But that's not your concern at all, is it? That's only because you're obsessed with the wrong target. Collectivists respect, revere and PROTECT other collectivists, both public and private. That's what is meant, in part, by the power to tax is also the power to "create and encourage". That's the left's part of the "too big to fail" mindset, because bailouts, subsidies, exemptions, etc., ALWAYS favor LARGE ENTITIES over smaller ones.

That's why it doesn't matter what "thing" you or anyone else obsesses on as a target. You'll be just as misguided as Marx, and for the same core reasons. Human individuals with so-called "unalienable" alienated rights (that are constantly eroded and abrogated) will be used as shields, will always be caught in the crossfire, and will always have the majority of the burden shifted onto them. There is NOTHING special about LVT that prevents that. It's just another basis for a tax that targets certain types of commerce, and can be gamed and avoided like any other.

 

[Roy L]

Figured it was something along those lines. The closer to the truth it is, the more dissonant chords it strikes in your nerves, and the more self-conflicted and worse it makes you feel, as every red flag inside you is raised in denialistic revulsion.

<yawn> Nope. I've proved that the known and indisputable facts fully support my position, and flatly contradict yours, which is why you always have to refuse to know them. Most tellingly, you have to refuse to know the fact that if the landowner (or government doing his bidding) did not forcibly prevent me, I would be at liberty to use the land. That fact is indisputably self-evident and self-evidently indisputable. It is obviously undeniable and undeniably obvious. It is the core of the issue and the issue at the core.

But you have to REFUSE TO KNOW that fact, and make up some fallacious, stupid, and dishonest garbage about me somehow not otherwise being at liberty to use it, in order to preserve your false, stupid, and evil beliefs.

Side effect of cognitive dissonance and all that.

LOL! No, it's just the horror of seeing pure, utter, malignant evil at its scummy work.

As a collectivist at your very core,

Why do you always have to screech the stupidest and most dishonest lies you can imagine, Stephen? When you accuse the champions of liberty, justice and truth of being, "collectivist," it's just a meaningless, childish, all-purpose pejorative, like "poopypants." You only heap the disgrace of dishonesty upon yourself.

you don't deal well at all with individual rights except as they are collectivized

<yawn> No, that's just another of your infantile "poopypants" lies. I have dealt with individual rights so clearly, so logically, so systematically and so indisputably that you have to make up stupid lies about what I have plainly written in order to have anything to say at all, as you have no facts, logic or arguments to offer in rebuttal.

"To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

Remember, Stephen? That's the only "collective" involved: individual people cooperating with a common purpose: to secure mutually the individual rights they haven't the power to secure for themselves by acting as individuals. Or are you claiming Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers were also all, "collectivists"? If so, you merely expose yourself as a lying fool, and I'm happy to be in their company -- and as you already know (but of course always have to refuse to know), they wanted to fund the federal government exclusively by a tax on land value, proving that they agreed with me and would consider your "collectivist" claims nothing but stupid, dishonest, evil filth. Which they of course are.

So STFU with your stupid "collectivist" lies, it's nothing but stupid, dishonest, evil, meaningless filth.

- and rented out to whomever will pay greatest tribute to the collective.

Just (i.e., market) compensation is not "tribute," stop lying.

Only COMPENSATION for the PRIVILEGE of depriving others of their liberty to use a given site would be paid for by the high bidder -- and you are in no position to criticize such an arrangement, as your alternative is exactly the same as mine, except you think government should empower rich, greedy, evil, privileged parasites forcibly to deprive others of their liberty WITHOUT making any such compensation.

You have to constantly rationalize fucking over the average individual for the 'greater good',

No, that is just another stupid, evil lie from you. It is self-evidently and indisputably our CURRENT system of landowner privilege -- and the even worse one you favor -- that fucks over not only average individuals but almost all of the bottom 99%, consigning them permanently to a treadmill of paying taxes and mortgage interest in addition to land rent, so that landowners can ride up at their leisure on the escalator the treadmill powers. The average individual would be INCOMPARABLY better off with LVT than under either the current system or your brain-dead system. INCOMPARABLY. YOU are the one who must constantly rationalize fucking over, robbing, enslaving, starving, torturing and MURDERING average individuals to give unearned wealth to the greediest, most evil parasites on earth.

as you are forced to make value decisions on other people's behalf (e.g., "good enough land to live on", or "Granny needs to make way for 'more productive hands'.").

Lie. Inevitably. I'm not proposing to make those decisions at all. The market would make them. You know this. Of course you do. You just have to lie about it.

You just demand a collectivist political power to designate certain women who in your personal opinion should have the privileged title of "Granny," and not have to pay market price for what they take home from the grocery store -- or is it only the opportunity they take from the landless that they shouldn't have to pay for?

In the end, you don't even deal with the fact that a massively publicly traded Walmart, while still technically on 'equal' legal footing with Joe's Trading Post...is in reality on artificially superior footing at all times.

That's a different topic, and I've dealt with it, so stop lying. One of WalMart biggest sources of privilege and unearned wealth is the land-use concessions it is able to get from local governments because they don't use LVT. Without LVT it is economically impossible to put the big landowner on an equal footing with the average individual. The landowner will ALWAYS be empowered to rob and enslave the landless.

Nobody is offering tax abatements, exemptions, Enterprise Zones and other subsidies to Joe for his DISPENSABLE trading post.

Lie. As a resident citizen he would get the UIE. WalMart would not. You're just flat-out lying.

And individuals? Fuck them, if they want power they should form a collective, just like the other political gangsters.

There are two main ways to get power: politics (your "collective") and landowning. I'm more interested in restoring people's rights than pandering to those who want power.

But GO HERE, and look at just how ONE major corporation manages to game the system and gain artificial market advantages over others -- including gaming and avoiding taxes, including those on land values, among others.

Where has WalMart gamed or avoided a land value tax? Do you mean a property tax? Because a property tax is quite different, and can easily be gamed because it consists of two OPPOSITE taxes: an improvement value tax on what the owner contributes to the wealth of the community, and a land value tax on what the community contributes to the wealth of the landowner. Depending on circumstances, a property tax can be mostly a land value tax, or almost entirely an improvement value tax.

But that's not your concern at all, is it?

It's just a separate issue. You have been demolished on the LVT issue, so you are trying to confuse the issue.

That's only because you're obsessed with the wrong target.

I've proved it is the right target. See my response to The Free Hornet. The Biritish constitutional crisis of 1909 also proved it -- the House of Landlords risked everything to stop LVT, because they knew what you refuse to know: that it eliminates the system of landowner privilege.

Collectivists respect, revere and PROTECT other collectivists, both public and private.

More stupid "poopypants" garbage.

That's what is meant, in part, by the power to tax is also the power to "create and encourage".

No, you refuse to know what it means.

That's the left's part of the "too big to fail" mindset, because bailouts, subsidies, exemptions, etc., ALWAYS favor LARGE ENTITIES over smaller ones.

Lie. How does the individual income tax exemption favor large over smaller entities?

That's why it doesn't matter what "thing" you or anyone else obsesses on as a target.

Refuted many times.

You'll be just as misguided as Marx, and for the same core reasons.

Claim lacking any semblance of supporting evidence. Indeed, we have shown why the error of propertarian capitalism is the same as the error of Marxism: socialists pretend capital is land to justify stealing capital, while capitalists pretend land is capital to justify stealing land.

Human individuals with so-called "unalienable" alienated rights (that are constantly eroded and abrogated)

By landowning.

will be used as shields, will always be caught in the crossfire, and will always have the majority of the burden shifted onto them.

Nope. You're just squawling like the 19th century obstetricians who slaughtered their patients by the million, rationalizing their refusal to wash their hands by saying, "childbirth will always be hazardous, it says so in the Bible."

There is NOTHING special about LVT that prevents that.

Lie refuted many times. LVT is fundamentally different from all other taxes, as it recovers the value government spending creates to pay for that spending.

It's just another basis for a tax that targets certain types of commerce, and can be gamed and avoided like any other.

Lie. The only "commerce" LVT "targets" is unproductive rent seeking. It can't be gamed or avoided because land can't be hidden, and it can't be moved. That is why evil, lying filth fight LVT with such maniacal ferocity: they know they can't avoid it or game it except by taking the risk of criminally suborning assessors, government bookkeepers, etc.

Now your relentless dishonesty and evil have made me ill again. Nice work.

 

[WilliamShrugged]

No. A servant can choose whom he works for. A slave can't.

You just said that if a person owns them self they could sell themselves into slavery (you also state that this has been done). I disagree because they would be a servant. Only a few would voluntarily decide to become a servant with so little say to be called a slave. But even then they decided to go that route for whatever reason. Is the person not choosing to be a servant? Even in the more extreme scenarios a slave has a choice (because they own their mind and body). They can choice to fight, run, die by their own hands, or continue being a slave.

Ownership is a legal condition, not a physical one.

So who is deciding for you to come troll this forum? Since your mind is not the physical deciding factor who's legal document are you following?

Nonsense. It's nothing to do with owning or selling yourself. You just enter into a contract to provide your labor.

Self-ownership is self-contradictory because it is alleged to be the reason one can't own slaves. But if you owned yourself, then you could sell yourself as a slave to someone else, who would then own you.

I've already addressed some of this stupidity. But the bold part covers what i have been saying. Did you not choose to enter that contract? Notice also you said "your labor". I thought self ownership is self contradictory??? Shouldn't it be "labor" according to your misguided ideology. But remember you don't get to decide that. Whoever legally owns you does.

 

[Steven Douglas]

<yawn> Nope. I've proved that the known and indisputable facts fully support my position, and flatly contradict yours, which is why you always have to refuse to know them.

Prefacing an argument with bullshit self-affirmations like that doesn't make it any stronger.

Most tellingly, you have to refuse to know the fact that if the landowner (or government doing his bidding) did not forcibly prevent me, I would be at liberty to use the land.

Oh no you don't. Nice stab at a slippery, evil, dishonest strawman. I fully acknowledge that fact. What I don't acknowledge is the notion that such "otherwise capacity/capability" should be labeled or treated as an actual right (one that you want collectivized, no less). The only the question, which is ABSOLUTELY MOOT, DISPUTABLE, AND IN DISPUTE NOW, is whether such liberty exists as an actual right even after someone else has assumed exclusive possession of a given parcel of land. That is the only issue -- not your flagrant strawman argument, as if we somehow disagree about whether you WOULD have been "at liberty" or not. That's not in dispute, so it's a meaningless goalpost that you can stuff up your butt.

But you have to REFUSE TO KNOW that fact, and make up some fallacious, stupid, and dishonest garbage about me somehow not otherwise being at liberty to use it, in order to preserve your false, stupid, and evil beliefs.

Funny how you conveniently omitted your circular, question-begging "right" in conjunction with liberty in that sentence. I never argued you were not "otherwise at liberty" to use land if nobody else existed to exert a prior claim. What I argued is that such liberty is not perpetually and unconditionally a right. I also argue that multiple claims to rights on the same parcel of privately held land should not EVER exist as a governing rule for all land.

A hundred, a thousand, or an hundred million people, all desiring the same small single plot of land, does not a right make. They are all RIGHTFULLY deprived of their liberty to use that land, and have no RIGHT, such that there need be any compensation to them from anyone, because they don't fucking collectively own it.

When you accuse the champions of liberty, justice and truth of being, "collectivist,"

I have never, EVER accused champions of liberty, justice and truth of being "collectivist", any more than I would consider collectivists like yourself champions of liberty, justice and truth.

"To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

Yeah, "these rights". Including the ones you're fighting to abrogate. You don't get away with that strawman either. I'm pro-gubmint, Roy. Just not pro-your-piece-of-shit-collectivist-statist gubmint.

...to secure mutually the individual rights they haven't the power to secure for themselves by acting as individuals.

Ah, but you aren't doing that at all. You've already established a paradox with multiple "at liberty" rights to all land by all community members. Each and every member is said to have a liberty right to common use of all land. Such a hare-brained paradox is impossible to physically secure, as you yourself admit that land must be held for exclusive use. So rather than actually "secure the individual rights" (as you describe them, an impossibility), you instead attempt to "reconcile" it, by collectivizing those individual rights and renting them out, as the state acts on behalf of that collective, under color of "just compensation" for "liberty rights deprivations".

Don't give me this bullshit about securing "mutually" the individual rights. In the context you say it, it's slippery code-speak for THEY DON'T EXIST EXCEPT COLLECTIVELY.

Or are you claiming Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers were also all, "collectivists"?

Firstly, you're no Thomas Jefferson, a man you quote out of context. And secondly, for as much as I admire and revere the 17th century Founding Father for much of what he wrote and did, it's funny you should quote a slaveowner in support of LVT. Furthermore, FYI, don't take my admiration for Jefferson and use it as a compound fallacy as assuming that I give assent to his every word. He was wrong about a lot of things.

If so, you merely expose yourself as a lying fool, and I'm happy to be in their company...

No, with your particular blind fanaticism and ideological zealotry, I tend to group you more in with the company of Marx, Stalin, Mao and Polpot.

-- and as you already know (but of course always have to refuse to know), they wanted to fund the federal government exclusively by a tax on land value, proving that they agreed with me...

Hardly. Jefferson wanted to fund the federal government exclusively by a tax on land value, but didn't use your collectivist rationale, and WOULD have excluded individuals with rights, as I am proposing, to wit:

"...there is reasonable ground of confidence that we may now safely dispense with all the internal taxes." - Thomas Jefferson

And what did he do after taking the oath of office in 1802? He eliminated all direct taxation on US Citizens. That's the difference between us, Roy. You would NEVER do that, Roy. NEVER. For you it's all about the land, while IKEA and Granny are created equal, in your eyes. They ALL exist and operate as a matter of privilege, and may the highest bidder win, because in truth, you only give a shit about the collectivist state.

l'm fully in favor of a Land Value Tax - even if it was the sole source of funding for ALL government. The difference between us, which makes me and not you, like Jefferson: it would not be a tax on individual US Citizens, who are THE ONLY ONES WITH ACTUAL RIGHTS. So I'm the only Jeffersonian here, Roy, not you. As a Collectivist Statist/Land Rents Marxist/Geo-Fascist, you like taking him out of context to make your people-enslaving points, but you fail to look at the reality that was Thomas Jefferson.

Only COMPENSATION for the PRIVILEGE of depriving others of their liberty to use a given site would be paid for by the high bidder

Yeah, IKEA outbids Granny, whose soul and birthright you would appropriate, and whose rights to property in land you would collectivize and rent out to the highest bidders. Meanwhile, Walmart gets a sweet, delicious Enterprise Zone offer from a competing city. But not Joe. Fuck him, who is he? He's not big enough, doesn't employ enough people (THE REAL SOURCE OF REVENUE) to make a difference.

-- and you are in no position to criticize such an arrangement, as your alternative is exactly the same as mine, except you think government should empower rich, greedy, evil, privileged parasites forcibly to deprive others of their liberty WITHOUT making any such compensation.

You're the only one presuming that everyone, including average US Citizens (average Joe Sixpack with a house on a small piece of land with a patch of green in front) as rich, greedy, evil, privileged parasites in any landowning capacity if they aren't internally taxed under color of "just compensation" to the real parasites. You included. And your non-existent UIE as proposed is not only NOT JUST COMPENSATION (for the real deprivations that would be suffered under your insufferable regime); it is corruptible from the (lack of) onset, and absolutely meaningless.

Thomas Jefferson made it so that the US Citizens were free of internal individual taxes. He was not a statist collectivist ideological moron in that regard. He recognized the difference between the Free Children of the Land and those entities that existed, behaved and interacted as a matter of licensed privilege only. You know, those HIGHEST BIDDERS you would put on UNEQUAL FOOTING with real individuals. Shame on you, Roy.

You just demand a collectivist political power to designate certain women who in your personal opinion should have the privileged title of "Granny," and not have to pay market price for what they take home from the grocery store?

Grocery stores actually sell shit, Roy. Stuff they own. They only rent out videos and carpet cleaning machines. Private land is not in the state's "grocery RENTAL store".

No, what I am proposing is that THE ENTIRE COUNTRY is a grocery store, but only where truly privileged entities are concerned. They alone would have to pay tribute to operate within our market, which would not be free to them, alone, but which is forever free to US as individuals existing and behaving as a matter of right (and who therefore have no need for UIE - the mess pottage you offer them in exchange for their individual land rights).

Now your relentless dishonesty and evil have made me ill again. Nice work.

Google cognitive dissonance. Real truth should make you, as I am, as calm as a summer morning.

 

[Origanalist]

LOL! No, it's just the horror of seeing pure, utter, malignant evil at its scummy work.

Lol, still at it I see.

 

[WilliamShrugged]

What?? Oh. My. God.

Post #182 was a direct, immediate response to post #181, an epic of sneering trash talk.

So you decided it was EW that needed to be called out?!??

Give your head a shake. Seriously.

Clearly you missed -- or deliberately ignored -- the context he was responding to. Read post #181 and try to get some kind of clue.

To help you get a sense of perspective. You need it.

Yeah i missed it. I read EW first because it was without a qouted reply. Which gave me the impression it would be something more general. Regardless, i am still correct that it was pointless (as was the other's post), and didn't need you spouting stupid things that had nothing to do with what i was regarding. So you're trying to justify your actions as well as EW because someone did it first and i didn't call them out? Grow up.

 

[EcoWarrier]

The Free Hornet has posed some interesting, thoughtful and respectful questions, so I would like to respond even though I'm not the superhero in question.

Excellent response Roy. You are a superhero.

Many just do not understand where land values come from. This leads to their confusion. Land values are created by economic community activity. LVT reclaims that wealth to pay for common services. Commonly created wealth pays for common services. Where the common services should be paid from. This leaves private wealth in private pockets. Perfect.

Currently we do the opposite.

1. Private wealth is socialized (via Income, Sales & Property taxes) to pay for common services.
2. Socialized wealth is appropriated and privatized, via land values and land resource extraction and usage.

This is a ridiculous situation that needs reversing. Geonomics does that.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Knowledge of the economy. Economics is a tookit to understand that.

Why we must abandon neo-classical economics:

 

[Roy L]

You just said that if a person owns them self they could sell themselves into slavery (you also state that this has been done). I disagree because they would be a servant.

Clearly false. A servant is at liberty to leave.

Only a few would voluntarily decide to become a servant with so little say to be called a slave. But even then they decided to go that route for whatever reason. Is the person not choosing to be a servant? Even in the more extreme scenarios a slave has a choice (because they own their mind and body).

Neither their mind nor their body is property, and therefore they do not own them. Their physical power of choice is irrelevant. The right to liberty is a constraint on what OTHERS do about one's choices.

They can choice to fight, run, die by their own hands, or continue being a slave.

But no longer as a matter of right. Duh.

So who is deciding for you to come troll this forum?

You are deciding, dishonestly, to call my contributions trolling.

Since your mind is not the physical deciding factor who's legal document are you following?

Dishonest and incomprehensible garbage. My mind is definitely the physical deciding factor. What are you even talking about?

I've already addressed some of this stupidity.

Unsuccessfully.

But the bold part covers what i have been saying. Did you not choose to enter that contract?

And...?

Notice also you said "your labor". I thought self ownership is self contradictory???

How does providing a service in return for payment relate to the fact that self-ownership is self-contradictory? You're not selling your self when you labor. You're just providing a service. Hello?

Shouldn't it be "labor" according to your misguided ideology.

?? Shouldn't what be "labor"?

But remember you don't get to decide that. Whoever legally owns you does.

?? No one legally owns me. What do you even imagine you think you might be talking about?

 

[redbluepill]

FlatIron nailed it.

This thread should be merged with one of the other LVT-polluted threads.

In that case, I guess we should merge all the Austrian Economics threads.

 

[redbluepill]

Simple question: do you think the sun can rightly be owned?

Of course it can be owned! This lady has the papers to prove she RIGHTFULLY owns the sun lol.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/935108--woman-buys-the-sun-plans-to-charge-tax-on-rays

"Although the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prevents governments from claiming ownership of celestial bodies, it does not mention individuals, a loophole that Duran’s notary believes makes her claim legitimate."

Must have been an Austrian who had written up that treaty