What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[redbluepill]

Umm, I posted asking whether under your decentralized system we would be free to try non-Georgism in one of the miniature North American city-states. This question has already been "addressed" and doubtless, as Mr. L. would put it, "refuted"? I don't understand. Here's the post I was referring to, the dead end in our somewhat (maybe?) interesting conversation.

If one secedes on the individual level their privilege to exclude others from the land would not be enforced. It would be to their advantage to not secede.

Well, whatever the reason, it is indeed non-scary for me. While on the other hand, land-monopolization seems to be a very real concern for you. So I think that I have, indeed, hit upon the root, crux, and core of our disagreement. Would you agree?

You believe that in a free land market (according to my definition: private ownership and trading of land), large and powerful monopolies will arise. I, in contrast, believe no such monopolies will evince. If you did not believe monopolies would take over, you would be open to agreeing with the (non-geo)libertarians, perhaps?

Well unfortunately we do not live in a world where land is not fixed. Maybe in that world I would agree.

This fear of monopoly is a very very common objection to the completely free market.

I am for a completely free market. I strongly believe that a true free market would not exist without ground rent.

I personally think it comes about due to a grossly inflated view of the power of companies. People see the "big corporations" as monolithically powerful; the consumers as hopelessly powerless against them.

They see management as powerful, laborers as powerless.

When laborers have no other choices but to work under terrible conditions for little pay then yes they are powerless. That’s why they organized in the 19th century.

They see landlords as powerful, tenants as powerless.

I, on the other hand, see the big corporations as completely dependant on the whims of the consumers -- their customers wield the ultimate power, not their CEOs. Likewise the landlord is totally dependant on the continued patronage of his customers the rent payers. People move off his land, due to his mismanagement, high prices, bad location, whatever, and he will quickly go out of business.

This is the same kind of argument statists make about the government. “The government is completely dependant on the whims of the voters – the voters wield the ultimate power, not their politicians. Likewise, the bank is totally dependent on the continued business of his customers. People move out of the country, due to mismanagement, high taxes, corruption, whatever, and the government and banks will be reformed.”

Everyone knows the definition of economic land -- congratulations, everyone. Let's have a party.

Obviously a definition is in order since people on this forum clearly make up their own definitions.

Land in the layman's sense, when stripped down to its Platonic essence, can be considered homogenous.

Except we are not talking about stripped down land.

The more relevant point is that most economic land is fairly homogenous.

You have a quote from an economist to support this?

Think about all the junk that economic land subsumes, and you'll see what I mean. One stray hydrogen atom is much like another, despite their different sun exposures. For each different possible type of land, and you listed a couple above: water and air, let's add oil, aluminum, neodymium, jackrabbits, and algae, one unit of any of these types is roughly interchangeable with another.

Now you are just rambling.

 

[Roy L]

Land in the layman's sense, when stripped down to its Platonic essence, can be considered homogenous.

But only by someone who has chosen to eliminate their contact with reality, sacrificing their own mind to preserve their false and evil beliefs. You KNOW that your claim is false and absurd. There is no homogenous "Platonic essence" of land.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-- Voltaire

The more interesting corollary of Voltaire's penetrating observation is that those who would make you commit atrocities will first try to make you believe absurdities. Your absurdities are intended to rationalize, justify and enable the atrocities -- the Annual Holocaust of the Landless -- committed in the name of private property in land. Those who seek to rationalize, justify and enable atrocities are evil. It's not rocket science.

I again urge you to watch, "Judgment at Nuremberg." It has a lesson that you desperately need to learn.

One empty place to stand is equivalent to another.

One absurd claim is equivalent to another. An empty place to stand in the Sahara Desert is not equivalent to one in Antarctica or on the French Riviera, or on the moon. You know this. Of course you do. You have merely decided you had better deliberately lie about it, as you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

I merely posted this as an observation and an intellectual exercise, due to a miscombobulation on the part of Mr. L.

No, I demolished you utterly, and you have been spewing absurdities to rationalize evil ever since.

The more relevant point is that most economic land is fairly homogenous.

You KNOW that is a lie.

Think about all the junk that economic land subsumes, and you'll see what I mean.

I see that you are lying, you know that you are lying, and you intend to go on lying.

One stray hydrogen atom is much like another, despite their different sun exposures. For each different possible type of land, and you listed a couple above: water and air, let's add oil, aluminum, neodymium, jackrabbits, and algae, one unit of any of these types is roughly interchangeable with another.

Nope. You know very well that is a lie. You are just lying again. Any mining geologist can tell you that where a unit of aluminum or neodymium is located, how it is chemically bound, how easy it is to access, remove and process are crucially important to its usefulness and thus its value. Any petroleum engineer can tell you similar facts about units of oil. Anyone who has watched tsunami videos can tell you that each unit of water is not roughly interchangeable with another. The salubriousness of the earth's climate depends on the fact that units of air are not roughly interchangeable, as their effects on weather and climate depend sensitively on their temperature, density, velocity, water content, altitude, etc. And evolution runs on the fact that units of algae and jackrabbits are also not roughly interchangeable.

All apologists for landowner privilege lie. That is a natural law of the universe. There has never been an exception to that law, and there never will be.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

If one secedes on the individual level their privilege to exclude others from the land would not be enforced. It would be to their advantage to not secede.

But they could enforce it themselves, yes? The teeming hordes of "society" are probably not going to mount an attack on one's small suburban home, especially if it's surrounded by electrified barbed wire fence, a moat, mines, and sniper towers. No reason to bother. They'll just respect your beliefs and your claim and expect you to respect theirs in return.

What about not on the individual level, but a neighborhood level? How small can a political entity be in your system? You propose to have thousands in the territory of the formerly united States. So that means political entities the size of present-day counties. Can one of these county-sized nations split itself into 20 pieces? Can one of those new pieces reorganize itself into 200 confederate but sovereign cantons? If not, why not? If so, you're getting down to 20 acre plots of sovereignty.

Each of these thousands of political entities would act, of course, as a monopolistic land-owner, if they are to be anything like current-day political entities. The forces of one state would have no right to enter the boundaries of another. They could even have border controls to keep out anyone they wished. They could make whatever rules of conduct they wished pertaining to their land. So we'd see a variety of justice systems, military systems, taxation systems, etc, in your vision for the future, yes? It kind of would defeat the purpose of having thousands of independent polities if they're just monolithically uniform, yes?

Again, would you be OK with one of these thousands of political entities, just one, trying Rothbardianism? Would that be acceptable in your vision?

Also, really, isn't all you are proposing is that we split up North America amongst thousands of landowners? Wouldn't a political map of N.Am. then just be a property map, showing the boundaries of the deeds and plots? So then we see the differences between my Utopia and yours are not that vast. Difference number one is that I want to take the decentralization further, allowing the breakup of polities without limit, down even to the individual level, making all political alliances voluntary, enthroning the man as the supreme unit of society and deposing the mob from that station. Difference number two is that I want the landowners to be those who actually have a reason to believe they are the legitimate owners, via homesteading theory and then free exchange. I know you don't believe that this reason constitutes a just claim, because nothing can constitute a just claim over natural resources in your mind, but it's at least a reason which is a whole lot more than the big fat Zip of a reason that the managers of your proposed political entities would have to claim rights over "their" land.

When laborers have no other choices but to work under terrible conditions for little pay then yes they are powerless. That’s why they organized in the 19th century.

There are always choices.

This is the same kind of argument statists make about the government. “The government is completely dependant on the whims of the voters – the voters wield the ultimate power, not their politicians. Likewise, the bank is totally dependent on the continued business of his customers. People move out of the country, due to mismanagement, high taxes, corruption, whatever, and the government and banks will be reformed.”

It's a similar argument. I agree 100% with the bit about the banks. I would agree about the governments if they were actually the just owners of the territories they claim and if they were run under the principles of voluntarism. As they are today, governments are indeed, ultimately, dependent on the people for their continued existence, but the dependence is not of the same exact sort as the dependence of the landlord and any other businessman on his customers. The nation-state has layers of protection for itself against its "customers". It arrogates to itself a monopoly on violence. It operates outside of market mechanisms. Etc. There are market-ish mechanisms that it is still subject to, however. Its "customers" can still move out of its domain. But these outfits have much larger contiguous domains than market landowners, and they use their violence monopoly to demand that you get their permission to leave (!), and sometimes they use their violence monopoly to forcibly prevent people from leaving. A landlord can't do that. You just pack up and move across the street; problem solved.

So I'm agreeing with you that the argument that the oppressions of the nation-state aren't as horribly bad as they could be given that, after all, we can move, has merit. We need to make the oppressions less bad by making the argument more true, by making nation-states more like landlords. Your proposal to drastically reduce the size of their domains is one good step. That would make it much easier to move.

Now you are just rambling.

Thanks!

 

[Roy L]

But they could enforce it themselves, yes?

Of course. That's called, "feudalism."

The teeming hordes of "society" are probably not going to mount an attack on one's small suburban home, especially if it's surrounded by electrified barbed wire fence, a moat, mines, and sniper towers.

Very true. But that doesn't sound like a very efficient way to protect your stuff, compared to paying taxes.

The Lesson of Feudalism is that in the absence of government, the landowner must devote the full rent of the land to defending his possession of it. That is why in feudal societies, even kings were poor.

No reason to bother. They'll just respect your beliefs and your claim and expect you to respect theirs in return.

Read a little European feudal history to correct that naive misapprehension.

Can one of these county-sized nations split itself into 20 pieces? Can one of those new pieces reorganize itself into 200 confederate but sovereign cantons? If not, why not?

Because military power is a public good with very strong economies of scale.

The forces of one state would have no right to enter the boundaries of another.

Landowners likewise have no right to deprive people of their rights to liberty without making just compensation. But they obviously do it anyway.

They could even have border controls to keep out anyone they wished.

Unless the landowner who wanted in had stronger "border control"...

They could make whatever rules of conduct they wished pertaining to their land. So we'd see a variety of justice systems, military systems, taxation systems, etc, in your vision for the future, yes? It kind of would defeat the purpose of having thousands of independent polities if they're just monolithically uniform, yes?

To see the results of your feudal libertarian society, just look at Saudi Arabia. Everything that happens there proceeds from the Saud family's ownership of the land.

Again, would you be OK with one of these thousands of political entities, just one, trying Rothbardianism? Would that be acceptable in your vision?

Sure, if you are OK with one trying LVT.

Also, really, isn't all you are proposing is that we split up North America amongst thousands of landowners? Wouldn't a political map of N.Am. then just be a property map, showing the boundaries of the deeds and plots?

Like feudal Europe, feudal Japan, feudal Russia, feudal China, etc., etc.

So then we see the differences between my Utopia and yours are not that vast. Difference number one is that I want to take the decentralization further, allowing the breakup of polities without limit, down even to the individual level, making all political alliances voluntary, enthroning the man as the supreme unit of society and deposing the mob from that station.

What you actually propose is to make the man who owns the land the supreme unit of society.

Difference number two is that I want the landowners to be those who actually have a reason to believe they are the legitimate owners, via homesteading theory and then free exchange.

No one has any such reason to believe they are rightly the owners. There is not one square inch of land, anywhere on earth, whose current title of private ownership can be traced in an unbroken line of consensual transactions to an initial appropriator who did not violate anyone's rights by appropriating the land. Not one single square inch.

I know you don't believe that this reason constitutes a just claim, because nothing can constitute a just claim over natural resources in your mind,

Having made just compensation to those whom you deprive of them constitutes a just claim, stop lying about what we have plainly written.

but it's at least a reason which is a whole lot more than the big fat Zip of a reason that the managers of your proposed political entities would have to claim rights over "their" land.

Wrong AGAIN. ONLY government can secure the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor. Government therefore has the only just claim to administer possession of land.

There are always choices.

Of course. The slave can choose to obey or be whipped to death. The landless can choose to serve a landowner or die of starvation. The whipping would be faster, and likely less painful.

I would agree about the governments if they were actually the just owners of the territories they claim and if they were run under the principles of voluntarism.

They are not the just owners, they just administer what cannot justly be owned. I have informed you of that fact before. Likewise, no one can own the earth's atmosphere (though apologists for landowner privilege have sometimes even gone so far as to claim one could), but government administers use of the atmosphere so that people's rights are not infringed by pollution, etc. In the same way, a rightful government would administer possession and use of land to secure the equal individual rights of all to use it. The only way to do that is to require those who exclude others from the land to make just compensation for depriving them of it.

As they are today, governments are indeed, ultimately, dependent on the people for their continued existence, but the dependence is not of the same exact sort as the dependence of the landlord and any other businessman on his customers.

I have already proved to you that landowners are not dependent on tenants or "customers." They own the land. They already have access to the resources needed to sustain themselves. It is the landless who must depend on the landed for permission even to exist.

The nation-state has layers of protection for itself against its "customers". It arrogates to itself a monopoly on violence.

As there is no way to allocate exclusive land tenure but by force, the alternative to government's monopoly of violence is the warfare society: feudalism.

But these outfits have much larger contiguous domains than market landowners, and they use their violence monopoly to demand that you get their permission to leave (!), and sometimes they use their violence monopoly to forcibly prevent people from leaving. A landlord can't do that. You just pack up and move across the street; problem solved.

That doesn't solve the problem any more than a slave being sold to a different owner solves his problem.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

That doesn't solve the [horrible!, horrible!] problem any more than a slave being sold to a different owner solves his problem.

Umm, except the "sale" is beng initiated by the "slave", who gets to choose his new "owner".

Honestly, you're living in a fantasy-land. Renting is not a horrific, gruesome, inhuman experience. Every month, you pay the apartment manager, or land-and-house-owner, or whoever, the rent, and you continue living a happy, productive life, completely unharrassed and unoppressed by your landlord. What's more, you can leave at any time with trivial ease. This is not the concentration camp scenario you are so desperately convinced that it is.

 

[Roy L]

Umm, except the "sale" is beng initiated by the "slave", who gets to choose his new "owner".

I'm sure lots of slaves would initiate their own sale if they could. The slave of landowning is still forced to serve the owner, has no right to liberty, etc. -- and he can only choose from among the owners with open positions that others slaves have not already filled.

It is not at all unusual for apologists for landowner privilege to claim slavery is not a problem if the slave exercises some liberty in choice of owner. Having swallowed landowner privilege, slavery is not much of a stretch.

Renting is not a horrific, gruesome, inhuman experience.

For most slaves, slavery wasn't either. In fact, it was about on a par with common, everyday landlessness:

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old negroes, who said to me: 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God, I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.' The planters, on the other hand, are contented with the change. They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper now than when we owned the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have got all the work out of him they can."

From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885. Reprinted in Social Problems, by Henry George

Every month, you pay the apartment manager, or land-and-house-owner, or whoever, the rent, and you continue living a happy, productive life, completely unharrassed and unoppressed by your landlord.

And continue paying for government twice so that he can pocket one of the payments in return for nothing.

What's more, you can leave at any time with trivial ease.

Moving is not trivially easy, stop lying. And moving does you no good if you are still landless. Do you think the landless peasant farmers of India who commit suicide in despair couldn't have moved? Of course they could. They just know they'd still be landless and therefore enslaved wherever they went.

This is not the concentration camp scenario you are so desperately convinced that it is.

It isn't here, because government taxes the productive for funds to protect them against the full consequences of landowner privilege through welfare, old age pensions, public education and health care, minimum wage and union monopoly laws, laws regulating conditions of labor, tenant protection laws, etc., etc. as I have already informed you and you continue to ignore. Where property in land is in full force but government does not provide such protections, such as Bangladesh, Guatemala, the Philippines, Haiti, Pakistan, Paraguay, etc., the landless are effectively enslaved, and their condition is barely distinguishable from that of slaves.

You are an apologist for the greatest evil in the history of the world.

 

[redbluepill]

But they could enforce it themselves, yes? The teeming hordes of "society" are probably not going to mount an attack on one's small suburban home, especially if it's surrounded by electrified barbed wire fence, a moat, mines, and sniper towers. No reason to bother. They'll just respect your beliefs and your claim and expect you to respect theirs in return.

Society would probably leave that guy alone unless ‘his’ land includes a natural spring and there is a water shortage. In that case you can expect violent action against the landlord and I would not blame the people. As individuals we want to survive. I will bet you would not lay down and die just so some landholder can keep his spring all to himself.

But realistically, anyone who is smart would not remove themselves from the community. They can enjoy tax returns from the land values they help create (not to mention the benefits/privileges of being a citizen of the community).

Curious, why did you put society in quotes?

What about not on the individual level, but a neighborhood level?

Sure. But I strongly believe that any neighborhood that adopts ground rent and eliminates all other taxes will benefit the most economically. This would encourage other communities to do the same.

How small can a political entity be in your system? You propose to have thousands in the territory of the formerly united States. So that means political entities the size of present-day counties. Can one of these county-sized nations split itself into 20 pieces? Can one of those new pieces reorganize itself into 200 confederate but sovereign cantons? If not, why not? If so, you're getting down to 20 acre plots of sovereignty.

There is nothing anti-geoist about secession imo. There is one system proposed by libertarian economists like Fred Foldvary called geo-anarchism:

Anarchist geoism

In a libertarian or anarchist world, some people might be unaffiliated anarcho-capitalists, contracting with various firms for services. But if we look at markets today, we see instead contractual communities. We see condominiums, homeowner associations, cooperatives, and neighborhood associations. For temporary lodging, folks stay in hotels, and stores get lumped into shopping centers. Historically, human beings have preferred to live and work in communities. Competition induces efficiency, and private communities tend to be financed from the rentals of sites and facilities, since this is the most efficient source of funding. Henry George recognized that site rents are the most efficient way to finance community goods because it is a fee paid for benefits, paying back that value added by those benefits. Private communities today such as hotels and condominiums use geoist financing. Unfortunately, governments do not.
Geoist communities would join together in leagues and associations to provide services that are more efficient on a large scale, such as defense, if needed. The voting and financing would be bottom up. The local communities would elect representatives, and provide finances, and would be able to secede when they felt association was no longer in their interest.

http://www.anti-state.com/geo/foldvary1.html

Each of these thousands of political entities would act, of course, as a monopolistic land-owner, if they are to be anything like current-day political entities.

Geoism would and should be spread through example. Maybe a few communities start off will it. When other communities see how successful it is they will adopt the policies too.

The forces of one state would have no right to enter the boundaries of another.

Right.

They could even have border controls to keep out anyone they wished. They could make whatever rules of conduct they wished pertaining to their land. So we'd see a variety of justice systems, military systems, taxation systems, etc, in your vision for the future, yes? It kind of would defeat the purpose of having thousands of independent polities if they're just monolithically uniform, yes?

Communities could have a geoist policy but still be different on other issues. For example, one community may legalize abortion while another could have it banned. Some communities may have most of the money collected from land values returned to each citizen while other communities would put the money towards education or roads. Just because the tax systems are similar does not mean that all political policies would be the same.

Again, would you be OK with one of these thousands of political entities, just one, trying Rothbardianism? Would that be acceptable in your vision?

Some may practice that. Doesn’t mean I would necessarily agree with all the policies. Keep in mind, I agree with Rothbard 90% of the time. But most of his conclusions on land were way off. Speaking of, did you read the excerpt from Rothbard I posted? What are your thoughts?

Also, really, isn't all you are proposing is that we split up North America amongst thousands of landowners? Wouldn't a political map of N.Am. then just be a property map, showing the boundaries of the deeds and plots?

No. I believe 98% of people will still want to be a part of a community.

So then we see the differences between my Utopia and yours are not that vast.

Never said our ideas of Utopia are very far off. But our different philosophies on property and land are fairly significant. Also, I believe your 'Utopia' could have some terrible unintended consequences without proper reforms.

Difference number one is that I want to take the decentralization further, allowing the breakup of polities without limit, down even to the individual level, making all political alliances voluntary, enthroning the man as the supreme unit of society and deposing the mob from that station.

Society and community should be as voluntary as possible. And a geolibertarian community would be the most voluntary of them all. Failure to pay ground rent would not get you thrown in jail. The community would simply not recognize your privilege to exclude others from the land.

Difference number two is that I want the landowners to be those who actually have a reason to believe they are the legitimate owners, via homesteading theory and then free exchange. I know you don't believe that this reason constitutes a just claim, because nothing can constitute a just claim over natural resources in your mind, but it's at least a reason which is a whole lot more than the big fat Zip of a reason that the managers of your proposed political entities would have to claim rights over "their" land.

Where did I say that political entities have any more right to the land than individuals?

 

[Nathaniel1984]

Redbluepill said:

"Society and community should be as voluntary as possible. And a geolibertarian community would be the most voluntary of them all. Failure to pay ground rent would not get you thrown in jail. The community would simply not recognize your privilege to exclude others from the land."

Well, that should be the end of the practical discussion. I'm more concerned about the issues of hermits, anchorites, and other such who live way off and would like to be left alone on .1 acres of land with a hut; or small agrarian communities like Mennonites, and others.

I agree with you!

 

[Roy L]

I'm more concerned about the issues of hermits, anchorites, and other such who live way off and would like to be left alone on .1 acres of land with a hut; or small agrarian communities like Mennonites, and others.

A significant fraction of the population (~20%?) would live on such little or low-value land that they would not exceed the individual exemption amount, and would consequently pay no LVT, just as low-income people don't pay income tax. They would get free, secure tenure on a cheap bit of land in return for losing their liberty to use the better land.

 

[Nathaniel1984]

Ok. Well, that doesn't really sound as bad as what I initially thought. Things get complicated for me when I start dealing with ground rent and how you value this and that, and what is productive versus unproductive.

So, what would be the cut off point on the amount of land? or would it be rather the quality of land? I mean, would someone who inherited 30 acres of basically unusable or unfarmable moutain forest be exempt? Would someone with 1000 acres of desert (no oil on it, etc) be exempt?

I think some of the worst aspects of current property tax and land laws are ones that prevent you from even giving up the land if you can't pay for it. For example, I have basicaly 25 acres of almost unusable and unsailable mountain terrain that I'd gladly give up (except for the 5 acres my house is on), but, the town won't even allow me to just give the land to them. I'm stuck paying 10,000 dollars or more on stuff I can't use (nor can anyone else, which is why they won't buy). Heck, when we wanted to have the land excavated for possible mineral resources (and thus sell it and get a profit and be rid of it and the taxes) the neighbors and the town blocked us. One of our neighbors down the road has about 66 acres (again, moutainous partially, and with some possibly arible land on another side) that he's tried to sell, but, isn't allowed to.

It seems that a lot of property tax laws are bound to make it difficult to get rid of the stuff you don't want, so that they can continuosly bleed you. Heck, we once told the town, "What happens if we just don't pay the tax on the 20 acres we don't want? Will you just take it and leave the 5 acres we want alone?" "No," they said, "We'll seize everything and all that's on it." Thus, a darned if you do and darned if you don't.

About all we can grow is brocoli since the soil is so rocky and filled with clay.

 

[Roy L]

So, what would be the cut off point on the amount of land? or would it be rather the quality of land? I mean, would someone who inherited 30 acres of basically unusable or unfarmable moutain forest be exempt? Would someone with 1000 acres of desert (no oil on it, etc) be exempt?

The exemption would be by value, and the same for all resident citizens. The amount would be just enough for a normal person to live on, have access to opportunity, and participate in society. Tenants would apply their land tax exemptions in lieu of some or all of their rent, and their landlords would then apply their tenants' exemptions to the tax on the land the tenant was using.

I think some of the worst aspects of current property tax and land laws are ones that prevent you from even giving up the land if you can't pay for it. For example, I have basicaly 25 acres of almost unusable and unsailable mountain terrain that I'd gladly give up (except for the 5 acres my house is on), but, the town won't even allow me to just give the land to them. I'm stuck paying 10,000 dollars or more on stuff I can't use (nor can anyone else, which is why they won't buy). Heck, when we wanted to have the land excavated for possible mineral resources (and thus sell it and get a profit and be rid of it and the taxes) the neighbors and the town blocked us. One of our neighbors down the road has about 66 acres (again, moutainous partially, and with some possibly arible land on another side) that he's tried to sell, but, isn't allowed to.

It seems that a lot of property tax laws are bound to make it difficult to get rid of the stuff you don't want, so that they can continuosly bleed you. Heck, we once told the town, "What happens if we just don't pay the tax on the 20 acres we don't want? Will you just take it and leave the 5 acres we want alone?" "No," they said, "We'll seize everything and all that's on it." Thus, a darned if you do and darned if you don't.

There are two solutions to that kind of problem: the tax authority can set the assessment, but would be required to buy the land at the assessed value if the landholder thinks it is too high; or the landholder can set the assessed value, but be required to sell it for that amount if anyone offered it.

I find your situation bizarre. When both improvements and land are taxed, there can be some perverse incentives for the tax office and local landowning interests who often promote a NIMBY attitude because it increases the value of their land if other people can't build on theirs. Straight LVT aligns the tax authority's financial incentives with society's interests.

 

[MattButler]

I love the idea of Land Tax to replace most if not all other taxes. I think if coupled with federal budget cuts it would generate a huge economic boom the likes have never before been seen in the modern world. America would become an extremely rich country at all levels and the poor and ignorant would be well taken care. I'd supplement LVT with taxes on pollution (no credits either), taxes on patents, and user fees where they can be easily enforced and make sense.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Society would probably leave that guy alone unless ‘his’ land includes a natural spring and there is a water shortage. In that case you can expect violent action against the landlord and I would not blame the people. As individuals we want to survive. I will bet you would not lay down and die just so some landholder can keep his spring all to himself.

But realistically, anyone who is smart would not remove themselves from the community. They can enjoy tax returns from the land values they help create (not to mention the benefits/privileges of being a citizen of the community).

Curious, why did you put society in quotes?

Because to me, society is the sum of human interaction, minus aggression. A group stealing someone's land is a mob of barbarians, not a society.

I don't see seceding from your neighbors' chosen defense and justice vendor as removing yourself from the community, any more than choosing a different grocery or gasoline vendor. Buy a big tank for your back yard and order a truck delivery of 10,000 gallons of gas once a year, instead of buying it from the local station like a normal person. You're different, but you're still part of the community of whomever you associate and trade with.

Sure. But I strongly believe that any neighborhood that adopts ground rent and eliminates all other taxes will benefit the most economically. This would encourage other communities to do the same.

Excellent!! And I'm all for as many neighborhoods adopting ground rent as wish to. I think that ultimately the insurance companies from the Rothbardian territories will drive all non-Rothbardian governments out of business by offering insurance against various oppressions and predations, such as asset seizures, arrests, and land value taxation. But I could be wrong.

In a libertarian or anarchist world, some people might be unaffiliated anarcho-capitalists, contracting with various firms for services. But if we look at markets today, we see instead contractual communities. We see condominiums, homeowner associations, cooperatives, and neighborhood associations. For temporary lodging, folks stay in hotels, and stores get lumped into shopping centers. Historically, human beings have preferred to live and work in communities. Competition induces efficiency, and private communities tend to be financed from the rentals of sites and facilities, since this is the most efficient source of funding. Henry George recognized that site rents are the most efficient way to finance community goods because it is a fee paid for benefits, paying back that value added by those benefits. Private communities today such as hotels and condominiums use geoist financing. Unfortunately, governments do not.
Geoist communities would join together in leagues and associations to provide services that are more efficient on a large scale, such as defense, if needed. The voting and financing would be bottom up. The local communities would elect representatives, and provide finances, and would be able to secede when they felt association was no longer in their interest.

The key thing in shopping malls, condos, gated communities, etc., is that their rules and their funding is voluntary. So if that's all you meant by your form of georgism, that people be allowed to coagulate and form contractual communities, we're in total agreement and in fact this writer is confused because having contractual communities is totally Rothbardian (aka anarcho-capitalist). We're on board with it. See the book The Voluntary City. Now these contractual communities need not be geographically-based -- see, for example, the novel The Diamond Age. But, they could be. Some man or men buys up 20 square miles of land and makes it a jurisdiction of "Amish law" or "Greenwich Village law" or "geoist law". There's stipulations written into the deeds that everyone must pay land value "tax", or must never play loud rock music, or whatever the man thinks will make for a successful and pleasant community. Then, the land value "tax" is contractual, and thus voluntary, and thus really not a tax and I will love it to pieces! Voluntary=good, initiation-of-force=bad.

Geoism would and should be spread through example. Maybe a few communities start off will it. When other communities see how successful it is they will adopt the policies too.

Perfect! I like your thinking. That's how I feel about Rothbardianism, too.

Some may practice that. Doesn’t mean I would necessarily agree with all the policies. Keep in mind, I agree with Rothbard 90% of the time. But most of his conclusions on land were way off. Speaking of, did you read the excerpt from Rothbard I posted? What are your thoughts?

I may disagree with him a bit, based just on these two paragraphs, though he might agree with the objection I'm about to raise. What about if you want to fence off a nature preserve, keeping it in its pristine natural condition? According to this, anyone would be free to tramp in and labor it away from you at any time. I think this would be unjust, and I think Murray might agree. In the particular example he gave, he is right: if the land is claimed but then ignored, never used, never transformed, and forgotten, it's fair game again at some point. But I don't agree with some of the implications of using use and transformation as the sole homesteading criteria. Philosophically, the essential element which brings about ownership is the act of making the claim, and then there is a continuum of certainty in the justice of the claim determined by any factor you can think of: the size of the area claimed, the extent of the transformation the claimant has done, etc. As a practical matter, using and transforming the land are probably the two biggest things you can do to solidify your claim to the land. Without that, your claim is much, much, more precarious, although it is possible, as in the case of the nature preserve. Once you've plowed your farm or built your cabin, your claim is probably set in stone, nobody's going to contest the justice of your ownership (well, except the Georgists/geoists ).

Anyway, there's no apodictically perfect and true way to determine the exact requirements to homestead land. Do exactly one hour of labor per 10 sq. yards of land, or make transformations increasing the land's value by at least 10%, or... you see? Conventions will arise. The market, including the arbitrators, will decide what constitutes a just claim and what doesn't. "Yes, you filed your claim to this 20 sq. miles and marked the corners with stakes, but that was a year ago and you haven't done anything since; I think it's a bogus claim and call foul", says Smith. The arbitrator is probably going to side with Smith. "But it's a nature preserve!!" Well, how big a nature preserve can you fence off? As I say, it's not an exact science, but I'm confident a free-market justice system will come up with something reasonable and workable and somewhat fair-seeming.

Also, really, isn't all you are proposing is that we split up North America amongst thousands of landowners? Wouldn't a political map of N.Am. then just be a property map, showing the boundaries of the deeds and plots?

No. I believe 98% of people will still want to be a part of a community.

What I mean is, isn't your system really not abolishing land ownership at all, but merely giving us thousands of landowners in the form of political entities? Wouldn't these political entities act as the ultimate owners of their territories, or "plots"?

Never said our ideas of Utopia are very far off. But our different philosophies on property and land are fairly significant. Also, I believe your 'Utopia' could have some terrible unintended consequences without proper reforms.

Possible! But it's at least worth a try.

Society and community should be as voluntary as possible. And a geolibertarian community would be the most voluntary of them all. Failure to pay ground rent would not get you thrown in jail. The community would simply not recognize your privilege to exclude others from the land.

Most voluntary of them all... assuming that land should not be owned. I do not share that assumption, thus in my view voluntariness is increased by respecting property rights in land.

Where did I say that political entities have any more right to the land than individuals?

You didn't. I was just saying that for all practical purposes, your political entities are landowners. Yes, they are supposedly acting for The Public Good and The Welfare of All, with naught but wisdom and selfless love in their hearts, but that is of course a laughable bunk. They cannot be said to "represent" the people in any real way unless the people give their unanimous consent. So the managers of the political entity are the ones in control of the territory they control. Your system has landowners, my system has landowners. My landowners get their land by homesteading it; your landowners get it by... what? Elections, wars, and other bogus political means. So, seizing it, as far as I can tell.

 

[Roy L]

A group stealing someone's land is a mob of barbarians, not a society.

The someone who presumes to violate others' rights to liberty by forcibly excluding them from land they would otherwise be at liberty to use is a thief, parasite and extortionist, not a producer.

I think that ultimately the insurance companies from the Rothbardian territories will drive all non-Rothbardian governments out of business by offering insurance against various oppressions and predations, such as asset seizures, arrests, and land value taxation. But I could be wrong.

You are indisputably wrong that recovering the publicly created rent of land for the purposes and benefit of the public that creates it is an oppression or predation, as well as that it is less efficient or practical than giving it away to landowners in return for nothing.

The key thing in shopping malls, condos, gated communities, etc., is that their rules and their funding is voluntary.

Except their exclusion of others from land they would otherwise be at liberty to use.

Some man or men buys up 20 square miles of land

From whom? By what right?

Voluntary=good, initiation-of-force=bad.

Except when the land thief initiates force against all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land....?

What about if you want to fence off a nature preserve, keeping it in its pristine natural condition?

If you want to deprive others of their liberty, make just compensation.

According to this, anyone would be free to tramp in and labor it away from you at any time.

Hunter gatherers were always at liberty to tramp in and use whatever land they wished, but never imagined they could do something so absurd as "labor it away" from others. If they wanted to exclude others, they did it the only way it CAN be done: by initiating force.

In the particular example he gave, he is right: if the land is claimed but then ignored, never used, never transformed, and forgotten, it's fair game again at some point.

If people have a right to liberty, it's always fair game.

But I don't agree with some of the implications of using use and transformation as the sole homesteading criteria. Philosophically, the essential element which brings about ownership is the act of making the claim,

No, that's just baseless nonsense. You can't just extinguish others' rights by declaring them extinct.

and then there is a continuum of certainty in the justice of the claim determined by any factor you can think of:

The justice of such claims is self-evidently nonexistent, no continuum about it.

As a practical matter, using and transforming the land are probably the two biggest things you can do to solidify your claim to the land.

But only because people recognize rightful property in products of labor, including fixed improvements.

Without that, your claim is much, much, more precarious, although it is possible, as in the case of the nature preserve.

No, it just isn't.

Once you've plowed your farm or built your cabin, your claim is probably set in stone, nobody's going to contest the justice of your ownership (well, except the Georgists/geoists ).

But in fact, historically, you are just indisputably wrong. It is only when such claims are supported by government force that anyone respects them at all. The colonial "homesteaders" moved into land the aboriginals had used and sometimes improved without a second thought that it might be their land (though they did sometimes try to buy it with beads and trinkets in a process the aboriginal users did not comprehend). The aboriginals in turn often tried to keep using the land after the homesteader had plowed it and built his cabin on it. The cattlemen ran their herds on land the aboriginals had used and sometimes improved, but the aboriginals often tried to keep using it. Then the sodbusters came and appropriated the land the cattlemen and aboriginals had been using and improving, and the cattlemen burned their cabins, trampled their plowed fields and tried to run them off. Etc., until government came and imposed land titles by force.

Your claim that only geoists would presume to question the justice of landownership based on use and improvement is false and absurd.

Anyway, there's no apodictically perfect and true way to determine the exact requirements to homestead land.

The perfect and true fact is that acquisition of land titles by "homesteading" is nothing but forcible appropriation, like any other method of privatizing land.

The market, including the arbitrators, will decide what constitutes a just claim and what doesn't.

There can be no such thing as a just claim to violate others' rights without making just compensation.

As I say, it's not an exact science, but I'm confident a free-market justice system will come up with something reasonable and workable and somewhat fair-seeming.

As landowning inherently violates people's rights to liberty in order to give a welfare subsidy to the landowner, it is impossible to have a free market or a system of justice that includes landowning.

What I mean is, isn't your system really not abolishing land ownership at all, but merely giving us thousands of landowners in the form of political entities? Wouldn't these political entities act as the ultimate owners of their territories, or "plots"?

The sovereign authority that administers possession and use of land is government. But administering possession and use is not the same as owning.

Most voluntary of them all... assuming that land should not be owned. I do not share that assumption, thus in my view voluntariness is increased by respecting property rights in land.

But I have already proved to you that that claim is objectively false. Respecting property rights in land is precisely what makes Saudi Arabia a feudal dictatorship. "Voluntariness"??? Don't make me laugh. You already know that Dirtowner Harry is a thief, extortionist and parasite. You already know that Crusoe seeks to use his property "right" in land to enslave Friday. You KNOW this. Of course you do. You just have to refuse to know it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

I was just saying that for all practical purposes, your political entities are landowners.

Fallacy of composition.

Yes, they are supposedly acting for The Public Good and The Welfare of All, with naught but wisdom and selfless love in their hearts,

They are acting in their own interest in a society that truly respects their rights to liberty, and their actions are consequently led by Smith's invisible hand to benefit each other.

but that is of course a laughable bunk.

It is your absurd attempts to justify landowner parasitism that are laughable bunk.

They cannot be said to "represent" the people in any real way unless the people give their unanimous consent.

No, that's just more stupid, dishonest garbage from you. Unanimity is never required for collective action to secure people's rights, because there is always someone like you who prefers to violate others' rights.

So the managers of the political entity are the ones in control of the territory they control.

As long as the rest of the people think that control is being exercised justly.

Your system has landowners, my system has landowners.

His has land administrators, yours has land thieves.

My landowners get their land by homesteading it;

No, they don't. That is just a lie. Please identify one square inch of land, anywhere on earth, whose title of private ownership can be traced in an unbroken sequence of consensual transactions to the first person who used and improved it without violating anyone else's rights in doing so. Just one square inch.

Thought not.

All land titles are originally obtained by forcible appropriation. There is no other way.

your landowners get it by... what?

Efficiency in securing the equal rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor.

Elections, wars, and other bogus political means.

War is not political, and elections need not be bogus.

So, seizing it, as far as I can tell.

There is no possible way to allocate exclusive possession of land but by force. You just want that force to be applied at public expense, to violate people's liberty rights without just compensation, for private gain.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

To Sir, With Love

Dearest Mr. L,

You may continue to merely repeat your assertions ad nauseum, pretending that to assert is to prove, and to type ROTFL is to refute. Quite honestly I could write your replies to me myself, as could most intelligent people, I think. In fact, if this thread were a Turing test, I think it would be a close call whether you might be just piece of software programmed to generate certain phrases in response to certain key words. So by all means, continue your mind-numbing replies if you wish.

Or, you could instead make a couple realizations and get serious about defending your position.

Realize first the fundamental ethical difference we have. You think land should not be owned. I think that it should. Repeating over and over and over that land should not be owned is not persuasive. It's not even persuasion, not any method I'm familiar with. So not only has your method not been successful, it is impossible for it to ever be successful, because you cannot persuade without using persuasion. Pick a type, any type, but let's use persuasion of some variety, let's use our minds, not just display our intractability via impressive willingness to spend time engaging in numbing repetition. For example:

But I have already proved to you that that claim is objectively false...You already know that Dirtowner Harry is a thief, extortionist and parasite. You already know that Crusoe seeks to use his property "right" in land to enslave Friday [unless he leaves, which he is free to do in the real world, which is why I invent an imaginary scenario in which it is impossible for him to do so, rather than address the real world]. You KNOW this. Of course you do. You just have to refuse to know it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

I already told you that I really and truly do not know what you claim I know. Rather, I wholeheartedly know that Harry and Crusoe are decent fellows, heroes even, for being willing to stand up for their property rights against moochers and looters. Because, you see, I know that natural resources should be privately owned. I am totally OK with Friday and Thirsty Guy dying because the property owners they're begging from refuse to give them a dime or a pint. You're not, but I am. That's a difference in our ethics. It's not because I "refuse to know" anything! I could say "you refuse to know that land ownership is right and good". And that would be meaningless and unpersuasive. You have not given me a reason to believe that economic land ought not to be owned. You just repeatedly accuse me of disagreeing with you, and scream that this disagreement is a despicable crime, akin to the Holocaust. So I will again explain: yes, Mr. L., I do disagree with you. Thank you for noticing. Now rather than just add various rhetorical exclamation points to your repeated revelation that "You disagree with me!", how about you attempt to convince us why my point of view is slavery and Nazis and dictatorship and death, whereas yours is sunshine and rainbows and lollipops and love. Bring out the logic. Make the deductions. Otherwise, it comes down to this:

"But I think land shouldn't be privatey owned."

"But I think it should be."

And that's it! That's as far as one can go!

Realize second the fundamental practical issue on which we differ. You believe being a landowner is not a productive occupation. I believe it is productive. I see the landowner as an entreprenuer for his land. I see decision-making as an extremely important economic function. You do not, apparently. When I say that I think that making correct decisions for the disposition of the land is vital and wealth-producing, you just snark about slave owners making decisions. Prove to me you can address a thought on its own level. Explain why we should not consider the decisions a land owner makes to be valuable or value-destroying, but we should consider the decisions a capital owner makes to be valuable or value-destroying.

 

[MattButler]

You believe being a landowner is not a productive occupation. I believe it is productive. I see the landowner as an entreprenuer for his land. I see decision-making as an extremely important economic function. You do not, apparently. When I say that I think that making correct decisions for the disposition of the land is vital and wealth-producing, you just snark about slave owners making decisions. Prove to me you can address a thought on its own level. Explain why we should not consider the decisions a land owner makes to be valuable or value-destroying, but we should consider the decisions a capital owner makes to be valuable or value-destroying.

While its true owning land and directing its use can be a productive occupation, its also true that taxing land does not interfere with this function but rather enhances it. I disagree with your assumption that landowners do a good job managing land today, in fact I think many of them do a terrible job and often its done with public subsidies to fire and sewer and roads and whatever. Look around at the sprawling wastes of suburbs, empty cities with vacant lots, high costs for infrastructure and services, and all of it paid for on the backs of people's wages and purchases. If landowners really do act as decision makers to manage the use of land, they have failed massively. Have you ever been to Atlanta? Ever been to New Jersey? They are giant parking lots; the people are taxed heavily to pay for all this sprawling waste, and its not cheap to live there either. Most of America looks like that. City planners have attempted to reverse this by "Smart Growth" and smart city planning and zoning, but tax on Land is the key.

By taxing land the landowner is given a choice, either use the land in a way that benefits the community or suffer the consequences of losing the land to someone that can. It sounds hostile when I put it like that, but what should we think if someone wanted to farm a city block in the middle of Manhattan? But for zoning restrictions, what is stopping them? Certainly not a land tax. You say "Its my land I can do as I want; I'm serving the function of entrepreneur." We say "Build a damn skyscraper or let someone else, rent is expensive and we need more apartments." By taxing land it causes the owner to use the land for its highest purpose, which in Manhattan is clearly the construction of tall buildings. What we have throughout this country is basically people using land in many, many, unproductive ways, because unlike Manhattan the opportunity costs are not so obvious. By taxing the land the true opportunity costs of land use are revealed. It becomes crystal clear, very fast, what is the best way to use land. We think this will make our cities and towns will be much better places to live.

And IMO empirical evidence bears this out.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

While its true owning land and directing its use can be a productive occupation

Thank you! I love it when people see reason. Or perhaps I just like it when they agree with me. I kind of like it when they disagree with me in an intellectually stimulating way too, though. Welcome to the world-famous Ron Paul Forums, by the way.

its also true that taxing land does not interfere with this function but rather enhances it.

Why?

I disagree with your assumption that landowners do a good job managing land today

I actually never made that statement. "Good job" is relative, anyway. How good? Humans are fallible.

in fact I think many of them do a terrible job and often its done with public subsidies to fire and sewer and roads and whatever.

I don't think I've mentioned explicitly in this thread yet that I completely agree with anyone who wants to end these communist scams (you call "public subsidies"). The cost of a road should be borne, like the cost of anything else, only by those who choose to bear it. If I want to build a subdivision, it is immoral for the taxpayers to be forced to pay for my roads. Roads, water distribution, waste collection, fire extinguishing, etc., etc., everything should be done by the private, free, voluntary market. Government doesn't work. Government is an amazing load of bunkum. Government is an unnecessary evil.

Look around at the sprawling wastes of suburbs, empty cities with vacant lots, high costs for infrastructure and services, and all of it paid for on the backs of people's wages and purchases.

You're losing me here.

If landowners really do act as decision makers to manage the use of land, they have failed massively.

Again, it's all relative, and not everyone shares the same values. Someone must make the choices. Right now the government makes a lot of the choices and I would argue that problems such as the the ones you describe are the result of government action, not the free market.

Have you ever been to Atlanta?

Yes.

Ever been to New Jersey?

No.

They are giant parking lots

That did indeed seem to be true of Atlanta, moreso than other large cities I've been to. Again, this is government's fault. Obviously! Who owns the roads? Government! If transportation were a private enterprise, pricing would counteract congestion. Real costs would have to be borne by the users, rather than shunted off to the taxpayers, a distortive process you so rightly decry. Without the crazy distortions which are created by having communist roads, urban travel by road would be a much more pleasant experience. Communism doesn't work. Sitting in traffic jam for an hour on communist road = waiting in line all day (literally!) to buy toilet paper at communist store. It's the same forces at work. De-communistize the roads!

the people are taxed heavily to pay for all this sprawling waste

Yes: let's end that.

Most of America looks like that.

Umm, have you been to most of America? I would have to respectfully disagree. Most of America looks really empty.

City planners have attempted to reverse this by "Smart Growth" and smart city planning and zoning, but tax on Land is the key.

City planners are infuriating morons who should be exiled from any decent society. Just saying...

By taxing land the landowner is given a choice, either use the land in a way that benefits the community or suffer the consequences of losing the land to someone that can.

In a free market, if an owner of anything -- land, machinery, money -- does not use his property in a way that benefits others, he misses out on profits. That's a strong incentive which rewards the competent and beneficial, and punishes the incompetent and non-beneficial. Those who make profits by "benefiting the community" as you say, become wealthier and wealthier, which means that more and more property comes under their control. The opposite happens to the non-beneficial owners. In this way, property gravitates to and concentrates in the hands of the ablest owners.

It sounds hostile when I put it like that, but what should we think if someone wanted to farm a city block in the middle of Manhattan?

Go for it! That's freedom, baby, and I love it. He's going to pay dearly for his eccentricity, and that's his right. What, we're going to have "the community" decide what can and can't be done with the land? What are we, the Borg? Rugged individualism! Think different! Here's to the crazy ones! Maybe the farm will bizarrely be the most successful venture ever.

By taxing the land the true opportunity costs of land use are revealed. It becomes crystal clear, very fast, what is the best way to use land.

How is that? Even more crystal clear than a totally free market would make it?

 

[MattButler]

How is that? Even more crystal clear than a totally free market would make it?

Yes. Even more crystal clear than a totally free market anarcho-capitalist society would make it. This is not to say that a Geoist society is superior or equal to an anarcho-capitalist society in all ways. However in one particular way, maximizing the economic utility of land, a Geoist system does a better job. This is especially true within communities.

 

[Roy L]

You may continue to merely repeat your assertions ad nauseum, pretending that to assert is to prove, and to type ROTFL is to refute.

I identify facts and their logical implications. Stop lying.

Quite honestly I could write your replies to me myself, as could most intelligent people, I think.

Correct. You know very well you are lying, and how. And most intelligent people could write my responses -- if they were also as knowledgeable, articulate, persistent and honest as I am.

Realize first the fundamental ethical difference we have. You think land should not be owned. I think that it should.

No, our fundamental ethical difference is that I believe in equal human rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor, and you do not.

Repeating over and over and over that land should not be owned is not persuasive. It's not even persuasion, not any method I'm familiar with. So not only has your method not been successful, it is impossible for it to ever be successful, because you cannot persuade without using persuasion.

It is your choice whether to find logical demonstrations persuasive or not. You do not. I have no power to change your mind on that score, and no interest in using other methods of persuasion.

I already told you that I really and truly do not know what you claim I know.

You do, because everyone over the age of about six does.

Rather, I wholeheartedly know that Harry and Crusoe are decent fellows, heroes even, for being willing to stand up for their property rights against moochers and looters.

They are the moochers and looters. Your "heroes'" property "rights" are nothing but a transparent pretext for their extortion rackets. Your "decent fellows" are the ones initiating forcible, coercive, violent physical aggression to obtain unearned wealth by depriving others of their rights to liberty, like any enslaver. You know this. Of course you do. You just have to refuse to know it.

Because, you see, I know that natural resources should be privately owned.

You have offered no support for such a claim, just your bald ASSERTION, which flies in the face of self-evident fact: the earth's atmosphere, the sun, the oceans, etc. are all natural resources, and it is indisputable that their private ownership would result in tyranny and enslavement far exceeding the worst humanity has ever experienced. You will now refuse to know that fact.

I am totally OK with Friday and Thirsty Guy dying

Because your ethical beliefs are false and murderously evil. Correct.

because the property owners they're begging from refuse to give them a dime or a pint.

Harry and Crusoe have no logically or morally defensible claim to own the spring or the island; to call them "property owners" is therefore just a question begging fallacy. Thirsty and Friday are not begging, that is just a flat-out lie. They are not asking Harry or Crusoe to give them anything; that, too, is just a lie. They simply purposed to exercise their rights to liberty, and were prevented from doing so by threats of violent, aggressive, forcible physical coercion.

You're not, but I am. That's a difference in our ethics.

Of course. I have told you on numerous occasions that your ethical beliefs are false and evil. Mine are true and good. Simple.

It's not because I "refuse to know" anything!

Yes, it is, quite precisely. See above. You refuse even to know the fact that the atmosphere, the sun, the oceans, etc. are not rightly private property.

I could say "you refuse to know that land ownership is right and good".

That is merely an opinion. What you refuse to know are facts.

You have not given me a reason to believe that economic land ought not to be owned.

I have proved it many times: it unilaterally abrogates others' rights to liberty without just compensation. This is self-evident and indisputable. You just refuse to know it.

Now rather than just add various rhetorical exclamation points to your repeated revelation that "You disagree with me!",

Stop lying. Anyone who has read this thread knows you are lying about what I have plainly written. Including you.

how about you attempt to convince us why my point of view is slavery and Nazis and dictatorship and death, whereas yours is sunshine and rainbows and lollipops and love. Bring out the logic. Make the deductions.

See above.

In every country where private landowning is well established and enforced, but the government does not make significant provision to alleviate its effects on the landless, they exist in crushing poverty, oppression, suffering, enslavement, injustice, stagnation, and despair, from which the only escape is typically a slow and painful death by exhaustion, disease or starvation. The eradication of their rights to liberty inherent in landowning kills MILLIONS of them EVERY YEAR.

Your murderously, satanically evil "point of view" is directly responsible for this Annual Holocaust of the Landless.

Realize second the fundamental practical issue on which we differ. You believe being a landowner is not a productive occupation. I believe it is productive.

But in fact, it indisputably isn't an occupation at all, as I have already proved to you. The market decides what the most productive use of the land would be, not the landowner, and the most productive user simply offers the most rent in return for not being stopped from using it. The landowner could be comatose, and the land would still be used just the same. His only "contribution" is not exercising his power to stop the productive from using it just as they would if he had never existed:

"The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent." — Thomas Carlyle

I see the landowner as an entreprenuer for his land.

Unlike a landowner, an entrepreneur aids production. And to prove that the landowner does not, you cannot answer The Question:

"How, exactly, is production aided by the landowner's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?"

And no one else can answer it, either.

I see decision-making as an extremely important economic function.

Decision making is only an important economic function when it aids production. The only decision the landowner makes is whether to deprive the producers of their liberty to use the pre-existing opportunity or not.

You do not, apparently. When I say that I think that making correct decisions for the disposition of the land is vital and wealth-producing, you just snark about slave owners making decisions.

The landowner does not and cannot make the correct decision for the disposition of the land, as the market has already done so, and transmitted the information to him in the form of the high bid.

Prove to me you can address a thought on its own level.

I don't know how to sink to that level.

Explain why we should not consider the decisions a land owner makes to be valuable or value-destroying, but we should consider the decisions a capital owner makes to be valuable or value-destroying.

The capital owner contributes capital that would not otherwise exist or be applied to production. The landowner only STOPS producers from using a resource that was already there, ready to use, with no help from him or anyone else, unless they pay his extortion demands. What would stop the producer from simply using the land, if the landowner had never existed?

 

[Roy L]

While its true owning land and directing its use can be a productive occupation,

It is then the "using the land" part of his occupation that is productive, not the owning it part. Simple question: if the same guy was making the same land use decisions as the land's lessee rather than its owner, would he be any less productive? The answer is obvious, and proves landowning does not contribute to production.