And it does give me ownership, as I exist, and have acted, as a matter of right.
False. You have no right to remove others' rights to liberty. How could you?
Sure...as a matter of privilege, not right.
Thank you for agreeing that your claimed right to remove others' rights is not consistently defensible.
That extra land (surplus), which I do not require for survival, as a matter of right, could be taxable, based on privileged behavior. See how that works?
Yes: I see you know full well that your claimed right to remove others' rights can't be consistently defended, so you have abandoned it, and substituted a pathetic attempt to pretend that something can be done once as a right, but magically becomes a privilege when done a second time.
If I sell my original hut first, however, along with the land upon which it rests, thus converting that wealth to a common medium of exchange, I become landless again.
Interestingly enough, there were actually parasites who used that scam to amass unearned wealth by "homesteading" land in the American West over and over again: doing the bare minimum to register their claims, selling their "homesteads" to later arrivals for a fat profit as soon as they qualified for legal title, then moving on to the most promising vacant land to steal.
When I transfer that wealth, including buying land in another area, all of that behavior occurs as a matter of right (liberty and property, including property in the new land I acquire),
Blatant question begging fallacy. You have offered no reason to imagine your claimed property right in land exists.
because those rights are inherent in me, NOT the land.
Strawman fallacy. No one has said the rights are in the land rather than individuals, so enough of the stupid and dishonest strawman crap.
So they transfer with me. But I have no more RIGHT to a monopoly ownership claim on ALL land, and its rents, than does any geoist collective under a "common property" doctrine that extends throughout all time and space.
Another strawman. The obligation to pay rent to those whom you deprive of the land extends only to those whose rights the local government is securing, and to the land in its jurisdiction.
Toshiba buys land. Toshiba is a corporation. There are NO rights involved. Its very existence, along with everything they do (as with any other corporation or collective) is a matter of privilege. Thus, any land they buy is subject to tax, including a tax on any economic advantages, including those that arise from rent-seeking behavior as they compete alongside real people in the land market who have actual rights.
Which cannot include a "right" to remove others' rights.
Their capacity to exist, let alone compete, let alone buy land, can literally be taxed away, and out of existence. Rent-seeking incentives gone, state funded, as more land freed from privileged behavior is made available to those with actual rights.
Nope. Flat wrong. You have merely transferred the rent seeking privileges from corporations to individuals, and called them "rights."
Meanwhile, real individuals who already own land as a matter of right are protected and secure in their individual land rights (the only land rights that actually exist to be reconciled in the first place), because they are neither privileged entities, nor are they behaving as a matter of privilege.
LOL! When Crusoe waves his musket in Friday's face and tells him to either get to work or get back in the water, that's not behaving as a matter of privilege? He has a
"right" to do that?
Despicable, evil filth.
Kenyan multimillionaire Imbatu Gamutu purchases land on US soil and builds his hut on it. It's not even a mansion, and not on very much land at all - a tiny fraction of an acre. Nonetheless, he's a foreigner, not a US Citizen, and does not exist or behave on US soil except as a matter of licensed, therefore taxable, privilege.
That is just legalistic nonsense. What makes him "not a US Citizen"? You aren't even
trying to talk about human rights any more.
Not everyone exists or behaves as a matter of privilege, but those that do are subject to taxes.
Like those who deprive others of their liberty by dint of privilege: landowners.
Not only LVT, but any tax the state sees fit to impose, for any amount and reason whatsoever.
IOW, you have no interest in whether any given tax is just or efficient. But then, we already knew that from your opposition to LVT, didn't we?
Privileged entities are not even guests in someone else's house, because that would imply that their activity, their stay, is free. They must all pay to play, as the states sees fit, in contrast to real individuals who are free and natural Citizens (to the extent that they exist and behave as a matter of right).
Please explain how Crusoe is behaving "as a matter of right" when he waves his musket in Friday's face and tells him to either get to work or get back in the water.
Thought not.
Despicable, evil filth.
So what was it you were saying again about all that land supposedly being bought up by land speculators,
There is nothing "supposed" about it, as you know very well.
and how private ownership of residential land as a matter of right somehow steals from others, while locking out future generations from land ownership themselves?
It is the inevitable result of appropriating land as private property without making just compensation to those whose rights are thereby removed.
How is that even possible, when the vast majority of economic behavior with regard to land is taxable privileged behavior, by privileged entities, most of which are fictitious persons, and not even real people.
Look what happened everywhere land was made into private property even in the absence of corporate and foreign ("privileged") ownership -- like every feudal society.
If land for real people with rights was getting scarce, and we needed to free up more for real people with rights, RAISE TAXES ON LAND. It won't adversely affect landowners with actual rights (other than falling land prices) because they are immune (to the extent that they are acting as a matter of right).
Your stupid, evil idea has already been tried, lotsa times. Making some landowners taxable and others not just drives all the good land into the hands of the untaxed, making them immensely wealthy through theft of publicly created value, and impoverishing everyone else. In ancient Egypt, it was the priests. In Rome, it was the noble senatorial families. In Mughal India, it was the Muslims. Raising the tax on land just accelerates the process of pushing land into untaxed hands, which invariably destroys the society that tries it.
That is always the result when public policy is based on a relentless spew of vicious, evil, despicable filth.
It could only adversely affect privileged entities and behavior.
All landowning is inherently and by definition privileged behavior by privileged entities.
The resulting fire sale on land would free up land, with lower land prices that would positively affect non-landowners who exist and are behaving as a matter of right, who could actually now have greater opportunity to claim their rights -- to land -- now that a free market became that much less distorted by privileged entities and behavior.
Stupid garbage, as proved above. There would be no "fire sale" on land, because the wealthy, privileged, greedy, UNTAXED landowning elite would snap it up. Why not? It's guaranteed to shovel money into their pockets in return for nothing, forever.
Taxes can be a tool that protects individual rights ONLY if they do not apply to individuals who actually have them.
As the UIE for resident citizens proves. Right. You have a right to deprive others of enough good land for a person to live on. Deprive them of any more, and you'll need to make just compensation: LVT.
The state can get as greedy as it wants with privileged, taxable entities; up to whatever the Taxable Privilege Market will bear.
I.e., the full rent, which LVT can recover.
The more the state taxes privileged entities, the more market opportunities and advantages are created that benefit real people with unalienable rights.
Through the access to opportunity the UIE guarantees.
That's how Mom and Pop's General Corner Store is forever able to compete with Walmart.
You have no idea what you are talking about. WalMart has become rich by owning land, but it doesn't have to own land to out-compete Mom and Pop.
That's your automatic market checks and balances, including checks and balances on the state, in a nutshell.
Where's the check on landowners?
If you want to free up capital, by all means, tax capital, or their gains.
Taxing capital reduces the supply of capital, and taxing capital gains makes capital less free. You clearly know nothing whatever of taxation economics. Nothing.
Real individuals, who are ALWAYS IMMUNE,
Like the Roman nobles...
would be right there to take up all the slack, buying up all the surplus at huge discounts from those privileged entities wanting to avoid a tax.
I.e., something for nothing, for you. Sorry, but there won't be any "huge discounts" on capital for you to take advantage of your privileged tax-free status. Taxing capital removes it from the economy.
Such a tax can only apply to entities that exist and/or behave as a matter of licensed privilege, not unalienable rights. WINNERS: Real individuals with rights. Always.
Stupid garbage with no basis in fact, logic, or economics. Always.
Furthermore, the lowering of land values as a result of increased LVT levy need not result in decreased revenue from taxable privileged entities.
Wrong, as proved above. The land will just flow into untaxed hands.
Their mill rates can go up, regardless of valuations. That's because we don't even need a reason to tax them. We can levy any amount for any reason whatsoever on privileged entities. And because they are not lumped in collectively with real, free and natural human Citizens, those same Citizens cannot be used passively, as human shields, as they do all the fighting for privileged entities on the basis of "rights" that we are ALL presumed to have, as if we were ALL created equal. We are not. Corporations, foreigners, collectives of all kinds are LEGALLY INFERIOR ENTITIES, with inferior legal status. They are welcome only to the extent that they act for our common good, and to the extent that they do not interfere with INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. "WE THE PEOPLE REAL PERSONS" ARE THE FUCKING SPOTTED OWLS - the endangered species.
Incoherent gibberish.
The only entities with a viable claim on land rents (or any other types of economic rent) besides the state (which can tax privileged entities only) are the very individuals whose "land rights" you are PRETENDING to protect and secure.
How would they ever have a just claim on land rents the community creates?
LVT and other taxes are forms of economic Round-Up. You don't spray the whole fucking garden with Round-Up.
I have explained repeatedly why LVT is not like other taxes. It does not stifle the economy, it invigorates it.
You use it on economic weeds only, which are easy enough to identify, especially those plants that are choking off life, space and nutrients of others.
I.e., landowners.
You don't take the only plants that have an actual unalienable RIGHT to exist and thrive anywhere in the garden and label them, presumptively and presumptuously, as weeds.
The landowner qua landowner is in fact ALWAYS a weed, a parasite, and contributes nothing to society but his demands that the productive fill his greedy pockets in return for nothing.
