What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Roy L]

Exactly. It's as if he read all of Locke's treatises but only considers the sentence "God gave the world to men in common" the only "valid" one. lolz

I don't consider it valid. Basing rights on religion is sure to fail.

 

[Roy L]

You stated false facts.

You have yet to identify one, nor will you ever be identifying one.

I wasn't and am still not impressed.

I have demolished you and you have no answers. Simple.

 

[Roy L]

What did I lie about? How is asking a question a lie?

In post #1088, you embedded the following lie in a question:

"your view that you have a liberty to use all property"

Claiming that my view is that I have liberty to use all property is a flat-out LIE about what I have plainly written. Embedding that lie in a question does not make it any less a lie.

 

[Steven Douglas]

You have yet to identify one, nor will you ever be identifying one.

I have demolished you and you have no answers. Simple.

Yep, you triple-dog demolished him. Dib hocks dice, tick a locket, no take backs, tap-tap no erases.

 

[Roy L]

The onus is on you to prove your claim because you are making the positive assertion ("land ownership is theft"). You still haven't done it.

Yes, I have, by showing that landowners are no different in substance from literal bandits.

 

[Roy L]

Isn't it self-truthishly evident? Landownership encourages coveting, and not sharing with those who covet is therefore a form of collectivized deprivation. A landowner steals from everyone else "who would otherwise be at liberty" to use his toilet for some other purpose. Naturally. Alternative punch bowls don't grow on trees, you know.

The more people who covet your particular toilet, the more you'll need to pay to keep sitting on it. Not to worry, though, as the market will dictate a covetousness tax in a way that is legitimate and self-evidently just.

Toilets. How very appropriate.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Toilets. How very appropriate.

Pay toilets. Stick 'em up.

 

[eduardo89]

Sure, just as it would not infringe anyone's rights if I merely claimed to own the sun. It's when men initiate force to prevent others from using the land that they infringe their rights, just as it would infringe others' rights if I tried to stop them from using "my" sun.

Why wouldn't someone be able to claim the sun? If they were able to go to the sun, plant their flag and homestead the sun there is no reason why it would not be theirs.

 

[eduardo89]

Roy, the earth is not yours to begin with so no one is stealing from you by owning land.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Roy, the earth is not yours to begin with so no one is stealing from you by owning land.

Roy is a magic man. An X-Man in his own right, with invisible tentacles which make it possible for him to be "otherwise at liberty" to use each and every property occupied exclusively by anyone else wherever he goes.

 

[Roy L]

Roy, the earth is not yours to begin with so no one is stealing from you by owning land.

<yawn> The earth's atmosphere isn't mine either, but if someone claimed they owned it and started charging me money for air to breathe, they would indeed be stealing from me, just as every landowner steals from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You have yet to identify one, nor will you ever be identifying one.

The previous posts full of "facts" you posted were those I referred to

I have demolished you and you have no answers. Simple.

You've demolished nothing and have repeatedly ignored my answers. You don't want serious debate. You just want to throw proverbial shit on the wall and everyone to call it art.

 

[Roy L]

Why wouldn't someone be able to claim the sun? If they were able to go to the sun, plant their flag and homestead the sun there is no reason why it would not be theirs.

Even aside from the absurdity of such vaunting, presumptuous greed, there is an excellent reason why it would not be theirs: they have no right to deprive others of their liberty to use and benefit by it.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

"Pretty good," that is, compared to the usual feudal libertarian garbage about land, like Rothbard's embarrassingly uninformed, ill-considered, absurd and dishonest anti-LVT screed.

Wait, does he have one of those? I've never heard it! I want to hear it! No, you must be talking about some paper he wrote, yes? Or perhaps the short selection you refuted via ROFLs and <yawn>s?

Personally, I find Long's voice really annoying: a kind of wheedling, supercilious, Wormtongue-like voice.

Umm, do you live in a trash can outside Gordon and Maria's apartment building? Or atop a mountain near Whoville, perhaps? Put on a happy face, Roy! Focus on the positive things in life! I mean, you convinced me to stop supporting evil; that's positive, right?

Easy: rightful property is something you would have as long as others did not initiate force against you to deprive you of it, while they would not have it except by initiating force to deprive you of it.

Well the question is how it's initiating force at all to deprive you of something. In order to directly initiate force against me you must somehow subjugate my body to your will by introducing physical factors to my body not of my own choosing, by punching my body, for example, or by poisoning me. Whatever is going on with all the rest of the outside world, how is it possible that the goings-on even could be aggressions against me, so long as no one is committing violence against my body? Well it isn't possible until you have property rights theory. The only way to initiate force against me is to actually use violence (force) against me -- that is, my body -- and to be the one starting (initiating) the trouble, not defending yourself against me. Other than that, it's none of my business what's going on with the rest of the Universe; I have no rights over the rest of the Universe, only over myself.

In the good non-landownership way of thought, my rights (and everyone else's) are extended over the rest of the external Universe automatically and irrevocably, by virtue of my being a human being and having the capability to access the various parts of the Universe if I were to encounter them in Nature free from the interference of any other greedy humans. Is that a fair re-phrasing of your view? I know you don't like the word "own", and you've never been able to explain what you think ownership is and how it is absolutely not the same thing as the combination of controlship and usership. Though you have repeatedly insisted they are not the same. You just haven't explained it. So I still wonder of what your definition of ownership consists. But anyway, my understanding is that everyone naturally has a liberty to access and use whatever parts of the Universe he could access and use were the greedy guys not preventing him. This liberty is immutable, caused by his nature as a human and the nature of the Universe, and so ought to be respected.

In the evil land-ownership way of thought, my rights are not extended over the rest of the external Universe automatically. I get rights to parts of the external Universe only as I homestead them, if they are not already homesteaded by someone else. Those parts of the Universe which have already been homesteaded, I simply have no right to, though I can obtain the right by purchase or gift. This, of course, leads to the death of millions each year and is the most monstrous idea ever to curse the Earth. But it does have a certain logical consistency, do you agree? I mean, the use and control of the Universe's space and natural resources must be divvied up somehow, and homesteading seems a just and internally consistent way of doing so, if you start from the premise that everyone does not have a right to access all the resources of the Universe that happen to be available to him locally.

Because by initiating force against me to stop me from exercising my natural liberty to use that external physical object, you are depriving me of something I would otherwise have. That is what makes it aggression.

Right, of course, but to know that we must assume that that "natural liberty" to use everything in the Universe is a valid right, immutable and thus not overridden by any homesteading claims of other humans. If one assumes X, then X is, of course, true. But it shan't be very convincing to use that as an argument on those who see no reason to assume X.

But in actual fact, of course, it isn't. It's just something you've stolen from others by initiating aggressive, violent, coercive force against them like any other evil, greedy, thieving parasite. We already established that by the case of the bandit robbing the caravans in the pass.

Right, obviously, that's long been established now, not only by the bandit story but also by the quote from Joe Jones the ex-slave. Anyone not on board by now is just a willfully evil parasite and we need to feed them to Herman Cain's electric fence alligators.

Wrong. An artificial arm is not part of you as your own arm is. The only claim you have to your artificial arm is not that it is "part of your ongoing projects," but that you either made it yourself or paid someone else to make it (or paid someone else who did, etc.), and thus own it without initiating force or depriving anyone else of anything they would otherwise have.

I wonder what if I didn't? What if I didn't make it, nor pay for it. I found it, a relic from a long-lost advanced civilization. Is it then not mine? The evil libertarians/propertarians would say that so long as you did not steal it from anyone else, it can be rightfully yours. Of course, right-thinking land-communists say that too, but we understand that if you took it from nature, that is stealing, because everyone has a natural liberty to nature. We understand that because we assume it. It is self-evidently the correct assumption.

Anyway, I wonder what are the implications of our correct assumption in this case of the abandoned product of labor. I must pay an extraction tax, perhaps?

If you did not make or buy it consensually, but forcibly took it from someone who had, then it would not be your property at all, however much it might have become "part of your ongoing projects."

Right, and if you forcibly took it out of nature, forcibly depriving all of us who would have otherwise been free to use and control (but not own!) it, then you commit a forcible act, and so that act is wrong. In fact, "wrong", that's such an understatement it makes me sick -- it's literally an act of genocide, and one which has destroyed and enslaved and slaughtered the vast bulk of humanity.

Which is not a point at all, but merely an attempt to evade the fact that what comes from nature without any human help is not a product of human labor, while what it MEANS for something to be a product of human labor is that it only "comes from nature" with human assistance.

Right, the evasion is despicable. And as you've explained, whenever I transform something with my labor, including land even, I own what I transformed. Of course, if I move the "something" I must pay the extraction tax as penalty for depriving everyone else of using it. And of course I can never transform the space which the "something" occupies, so I can never own that space. But I can own land, as you've explained to the dense land-apologists, if you mean the thin layer of soil and etc. which I transform to make a farm (or a parking lot or whatever), I just can never, ever own the space which it occupies, because that space was there all along and everyone was naturally free to use and control (but not own!) it until I seized it away from them. Am I starting to get it?

Amusingly, Long purports to establish property rights in food by observing that if others could rightly take the food you produce, they could starve you to death. He studiously averts his attention from the fact that if others could rightly appropriate as their private property the land you have to use to produce your food, they could likewise starve you to death.

Right, this is incredibly amusing! If everyone doesn't have the natural liberty to use and control (but not own!) everything in nature he runs across, and to be compensated by anyone removing any of that nature from its naturally accessible state, then all he has is a right to starve to death, as those in land-owning societies prove by very frequently doing just that.

OTC, it's absolutely clear: we own the things we rightfully own not because they are part of our "projects," but because they are our PRODUCTS, and would not have existed but for our efforts or the efforts of those we have engaged to produce them. By definition, that can never include the earth's surface area nor any other natural resource, as they already existed without being produced by anyone.

Right, you are absolutely right, of course. We want to have private property in almost everything, contrary to those trying to slander us as anti-property. We just don't accept the ridiculous idea of allowing private property in those things which are the genesis of all the other property. The beginning must not be privately owned. After that, though, all the products of labor which come about should be owned. The building blocks must remain unowned, but the structure they build must be owned. That's self-evident.

It is only the fact that owning products of labor does not initiate force to deprive anyone else of anything they would otherwise have that makes them ownable as property, because that is the only way to own things without violating others' rights.

Right, exactly. Well, we should remember to stipulate: as long as one pays the severance tax on the raw materials if the product of labor is portable (like a chainsaw), or the LVT if the product of labor is not portable (like a parking lot). As long as those conditions are met, and any other just and proper taxes are paid, and any other reasonable restrictions and limitations democracy enacts are complied with, then owning products of labor does not violate other's rights. Otherwise, it does. One can never own the building blocks, only the tower. And even the tower is subject to the wishes of society, for the good of all.

The mention of Henry George comes about halfway through, and the objection Long offers to the fact that land value is publicly created and therefore not rightly appropriable by the land's private owner is bald sophistry. He claims that the presence of the community makes his labor as a philosophy professor more valuable just as it makes his land more valuable, but that is equivocation. The market in the community that judges his labor to have a certain value is not the creator of that value; he is, just as the market's judgment that a Mercedes is worth more than a Fiat did not create the former's higher value, the good folks at Mercedes did. In order for his labor to have that high a market value, HE HAS TO PERFORM IT UP TO THAT STANDARD. HE is the one who must create his labor's value by giving the desired quality of service. His land, by contrast, gets its value from the community without his lifting a finger.

But of course he is right that society gives his professorial services value. If he were out in the middle of the Sahara preaching to the dunes, his lectures would have little to no value. It is a perfectly valid reason to dismiss that specific argument for a non-landownership society. If that were the only argument, we'd be sunk. Luckily you and I know there are many, many, MANY other reasons to reject a murderous landownership regime. In the above paragraph, you bring up one of them: that professorial services are a product of labor, while land is not. But that's a different argument. That's the argument that land should not be owned because it's not a product of labor. The original argument that Mr. Long was addressing was that land should not be owned because without society it would have no value. He addressed it and made a fair point. His professorial services also would have no value without society. Since that's not a conclusive argument to disallow private property in his professorial services, it cannot be a conclusive argument to disallow private property in land. It can be a contributing persuasive element, it can be another point to bring up to people, I'm not saying you shouldn't bring it up, but ultimately we cannot decide to disallow private appropriation merely because without society a Thing X would have no value, because almost all Thing Xs would have no value without society, not land only.

Funny, I didn't get that from it.

Well, Mr. Long probably did not intend that conclusion, but it is nevertheless inevitable. One cannot hide from the truth! All the facts of the case add up to one thing: LVT would be just, natural, and consistent with liberty. It's the only possible way to deal with land that is.

You might want to ponder the fact that although Long is a respected libertarian theorist and a philosophy professor at Auburn University, I just demolished his whole belief system in a few minutes.

You are a libertarian of sorts also, you've implied, right? So I guess this just means you are a much better libertarian theorist and philosopher than Dr. Long! Am I right?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, I have, by showing that landowners are no different in substance from literal bandits.

You didn't prove that. Repetition of an assertion does not make it true.

 

[Roy L]

Roy is a magic man. An X-Man in his own right, with invisible tentacles which make it possible for him to be "otherwise at liberty" to use each and every property occupied exclusively by anyone else wherever he goes.

Thank you for again proving that you have no choice but to lie about what I have plainly written.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Even aside from the absurdity of such vaunting, presumptuous greed, there is an excellent reason why it would not be theirs: they have no right to deprive others of their liberty to use and benefit by it.

Tell me, do you practice what you preach? Do you allow others to use your land as they wish (assuming you own land)? If not, why not? Surely you could solve the supposed problem you believe exists by simply buying up vast tracts of land and turning it into your utopia! Put your money where your mouth is, Roy L!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't consider it valid. Basing rights on religion is sure to fail.

All theories of rights are based on religion and other moral presuppositions. Secularism and atheism are religions too, as is Statism. This is why I told you to check your presuppositions several pages ago. If you had done so, you would realize your arguments are incorrect and illogical.

 

[Roy L]

The previous posts full of "facts" you posted were those I referred to

<yawn> And I have proved them.

You've demolished nothing and have repeatedly ignored my answers.

Lie. I have demolished you utterly. AFAIK the last "argument" I didn't answer was Aquabuddha's last post on scriptural interpretation, which IMO would have been futile, as interpretations of scripture have occupied scholars for thousands of years with not much to show for it.

You don't want serious debate.

You are lying again. I have debated seriously with jascott as he is honest, and with Steven until he started lying. What I don't want is to give an erroneous impression that the absurd lies and fallacious, dishonest nonsense offered by apologists for greed, privilege and injustice constitute "serious debate."

 

[Roy L]

All theories of rights are based on religion and other moral presuppositions.

Mine is not.

Secularism and atheism are religions too, as is Statism.

No, that is just stupid, dishonest, self-contradictory garbage. Calling atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby.

This is why I told you to check your presuppositions several pages ago. If you had done so, you would realize your arguments are incorrect and illogical.

I have checked my presuppositions, and find them all sound and indisputable. You, by contrast, have not checked yours, and can't even identify mine.