Having a government enforce restitution for theft is not a violation of free market principles.
And with that statement you bring everything full circle as you beg the fundamental question of ownership, with an
a prior presumption in favor of your "common wealth" view. That's your position, your normative (should/ought) as you argue from that premise. And yet, far from being a settled question, it is the very matter which is ultimately in dispute.
The question of ultimate ownership of land cannot be resolved without a charge of theft on someone's part, with the victorious side considering legislative action favorable to their position "protection from theft".
Thus, it all centers around ultimate ownership rights, with a matter that can only be argued, fundamentally, on moral grounds from either side. Landowners who believe in property rights in land would see the state as the thief. This charge would naturally be dismissed by geoists, as they see landowners as the original thieves of land which they see as ultimately common wealth. For them, state arrogation of ultimate ownership (i.e., the power and authority to capture land rents) is seen merely a rescission of an odious contract. In other words, the state, once employed by landowners to enforce their "theft privileges", is now merely putting and taking things back so that the "rightful owners(s)" may finally receive just compensation.
Although Henry George and many LVT proponents will come right out and say that land and other scarce resources are "common wealth", or "belonging equally to all" or "collectively owned", many of the geoists I've encountered attempt to dodge the question of ownership, or obfuscate where the essence of ultimate ownership is concerned. They don't even want the question up for debate, so they frame their issues in a way that attempts to prevent anyone from even thinking in terms of ownership (property in land) in the first place. So you'll hear things like, "Stop thinking in propertarian language!" (Roy), or "Land can't be owned (is un-ownable)", or "The state doesn't own the land, but is merely an "administrator" of a tax on land", etc., as opposed to Ecowarrier(sic)'s more forthright, "The state owns the land. Period.", as if having it painted clearly onto one of his wooden LVT baby blocks somehow settled it.
I'm sure you would not consider it a violation of the free market when a court demands a citizen pay stealing his neighbor's car or setting fire to his house.
Of course not, because in that case I'm assuming that it really IS the neighbor's car or house. But even if that very question is begged and vocally raised in court, it can be resolved. In the case of geoists and LVT, they want the question of state/common [ultimate] ownership of property in land to be merely PRESUMED, so that they can (as you just did) argue from that premise.
"...confusions between land and capital..."
...are unnecessary. Separating land from capital is important to geoists for obvious reasons, because they don't want land to be treated as capital, which then begs the question of whether it can/ought/should be considered "property". I don't have a problem with the separation and consider the distinction valid for other reasons, only one of which is that it brings the question of
land as property squarely to the forefront.
Out of the three classically defined factors of production -- land, labor and capital -- geoists argue, for their own reasons, that only one of these should be subject to and targeted as the basis for a tax -- that basis being the changing values of the land, which they see as a manifestation of "community created" wealth which must be captured on behalf of the commons/state/people/community/
collective.
"...and between state property and common property..."
Note that the author omits "private" altogether, as if the only question that needed to be settled was some philosophical confusion about "state" versus "common". He attempts to frame this "confusion" as being between between socialists and so-called "royal libertarians". However, the focus is on "state" versus "common" only, which is really about what the geoists believe distinguishes them from socialists! That distinction, between state property vs. common property, is wholly irrelevant to private landownership propertarians, because the net effect, as it affects
ultimate private landownership, is IDENTICAL either way!
At least a tyrant is honest about it. "I'm the ruler and god of this fucking land. It's my country, my rules, so pay up."
Classical liberals did not simply prefer LVT to other forms of taxation, they believed it was perfectly compatible or even a requirement for a free market.
I don't give a shit what Albert Jay Nock or any of the classical liberals believed about any tax. We have minds of our own, and a lot more hindsight than any of them did. To me it's not a question of which tax is preferable to another, or more "compatible" with a free market, but only to whom it should apply (and to whom it must
never apply).
Obviously you aren't going to end zoning laws, income taxes, and cronyism with the State as it is right now. You need a path towards deconstructing the State. I have stated several times that I believe the LVT can play a major role in putting us on the road towards freedom.
Paul Krugman believes that more spending can solve every problem. LVT proponents want LVT added in, on the belief that with enough LVT in place, people will somehow see the wisdom of eliminating other taxes. And yet history shows otherwise. Exactly the opposite, in fact, in every single case. Objectively and indisputably, as Roy would say. LVT becomes just another basis for a tax, and a minor one at that, often phased out entirely, as other taxes dominate. And yet the majority of geoists STILL believe that this pattern would somehow play out differently
this time - if only it was "implemented correctly". They are happy to point to a list of what they THINK are LVT success stories, but I have yet to hear whether these were examples of LVT that were "implemented correctly". Because if they were, it's not a success story for LVT after all.
There are several ways to ensure the LVT system is not taken advantage of. For example, there are software-assisted crosschecks.
DISCOVERY is only a problem for an ILLEGALLY dodged tax. No software assistance is even necessary for a tax dodge that is legally sanctioned -- even ENCOURAGED.
On top of that, Geoists want...
...in one hand. I wonder what they could do in the other, and which would fill up quicker?
And no geoist advocates "handing it out".
Oh? No, as in, not one? I guess you missed
THIS ONE, among others, huh?
With an effective LVT program in place, existing tools such as enterprise zones, abatements, grants and loans (when available) can be employed strategically to supplement an LVT program.
That's a geoist/LVT proponent who advocates "handing it out". Strategically.
