What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Sola_Fide]

Lies!

 

[Steven Douglas]

No, those who, if their liberty were not being violated, would be at liberty to use it.

Roy walked through miles and miles of forest, day after day, alone in the woods and the wilds, subsisting mostly on pine nuts and wild berries. Roy was accustomed to being alone, but that did not mean that he was not lonely. Roy was truly a sad, lonely, lonely soul.

Late one afternoon, while rooting for grubs in a felled and rotting tree, Roy spied a column of smoke rising from a small clearing off in the distance. Roy followed this until it he was close enough to see that he had indeed stumbled onto a small settlement.

Ah! I knew it! Roy thought to himself. My natural liberty rights were being violated all along! Were it not for their violations of my natural liberty rights, I would be at liberty to use the very land they are on now. Well, they don't owe me much, because there is other available land around, but they do owe me, by Dog. Perpetually even.

And with that, Roy took a deep, fortifying breath, and set out toward the settlement, to sort out all the willing payers from the evil would be thieves who were oppressing him.

As Roy addressed the several families of settlers as they sat around the fire, a kindly old woman ladled a nice hot bowl of soup for Roy from the large cast iron cauldron that was suspended over the fire.

Roy thanked the old woman, and patiently explained the deprivation he was now suffering because of the natural liberty rights these settlers had deprived him of, given that he would have been at liberty to use this land if were it not for them. Everyone listened intently, politely - wide eyed even, and with rapt interest. Roy felt that he was making progress, and breathed an inner sigh. At last, he felt that he might be witnessing the seeds of a possible dawn of a non-oppressive utopia.

When Roy had finally finished saying his peace, there was silence in the camp. Finally, one of the settler children, a young boy of about 13 years of age with an inquisitive look on his face, approached Roy. In the boy's hand was a long piece of cloth, and in the bottom of that cloth a rock, which the boy brought full circle, with one deft move, into the center of Roy's forehead. This caused Roy to fall backward, unconscious, into the cauldron.

Poor Roy had stumbled onto a rare discovery - the unknown surviving descendants of the Donner Party, who lived by an entirely set of deprivation-based rules of their own. When the freshly provisioned camp broke for higher ground the next day, they decided to deed the land to Roy, including the hole they had dug for his bones, free of charge.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Except when you work for a business you are agreeing to forfeit any ownership of what you create and get reimbursed through wages, benefits, etc. But we cannot trace back the creation of natural land to any single person or company. Therefore, land is different from capital and therefore must be treated differently.

Not all men are created equal? So I assume you disagree with the Declaration of Independence?

What I meant is that all men are different (and start their lives in different situations in terms of wealth, etc). Notice I also said that all men have equal rights. RBP claimed that "others around you to have equal access to land. When you have a few people grabbing up all the land then you have a problem." which is obviously false.

 

[Roy L]

In other words, I have said something which not only can you not refute, not only can you not interface with the statement in an intelligent way,

One cannot interface with it in an intelligent way because it is stupid, meaningless garbage. Which water is "that" water? "Owns" it how? Your statement was just a cretinous spew of meaningless, dishonest garbage.

not only all that, which has been true for almost all your posts throughout this discussion,

Lie.

in this case you do not even have a talking point to regurgitate for it.

There is nothing to talk about. Your statement was merely an attempt to deny a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality -- that people are naturally at liberty to use all that nature provided -- by spewing meaningless, dishonest garbage at it.

 

[Roy L]

Roy, might I make a suggestion? Regardless of my position on whether I agree with you or not....your condescending, sarcastic, and snarky remarks are major turn-offs to your larger point(s), regardless of how valid (or not) they are. Because of this, might I recommend not being so insulting?

Sorry, but I am not able to pretend that the fallacious, absurd and dishonest rationalizations for evil offered by those who serve evil merit any respect. Any objective reading of the "arguments" being made against LVT here will show that they are not only invariably fallacious but patently absurd and relentlessly dishonest. jascott is the only one who has not told stupid lies.

 

[moostraks]

...
Ah! I knew it! Roy thought to himself. My natural liberty rights were being violated all along! Were it not for their violations of my natural liberty rights, I would be at liberty to use the very land they are on now. Well, they don't owe me much, because there is other available land around, but they do owe me, by Dog. Perpetually even.

And with that, Roy took a deep, fortifying breath, and set out toward the settlement, to sort out all the willing payers from the evil would be thieves who were oppressing him...

Poor Roy had stumbled onto a rare discovery - the unknown surviving descendants of the Donner Party, who lived by an entirely set of deprivation-based rules of their own. When the freshly provisioned camp broke for higher ground the next day, they decided to deed the land to Roy, including the hole they had dug for his bones, free of charge.

 

[Edu]

Well, judging from history, technically, those who have the ability to defend the land from being taken from them own it.

This is correct. Put up a fence and let everyone around you know it's yours by marking it and then defend it.

Things have gotten so twisted.

There is no such thing as a direct tax in this country. << READ THAT AGAIN TILL YOU GET IT!!

If you think congress has the power to directly tax any SOVEREIGN American, you are lacking in your education.

If you do not understand that each American is a sovereign, you need to read something about it. Like the Declaration of Independence, sheesh.

You cut away from the King, you are now free, you are now sovereign yourself. << WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND?

If some government can DIRECTLY tax you, then you are BELOW THAT GOVERNMENT. You better check the label on your underwear!

And whoever thinks you need a national retail tax to run the government needs to look up how the government ran the first 100 years WITH A BUDGET SURPLUS!!

This is basic stuff that you should have leaned in high school.

 

[Roy L]

I don't get it Roy, why exactly are you here?

To fight evil.

You only post in this thread,

I have posted in others as well; but only a few interest me, and most haven't gone on very long. IMO the threads devoted to current electoral politics are pointless.

nothing of which has to do with getting Ron Paul elected,

I am certain that Ron Paul cannot be elected president. The system is just too corrupt, too much the private property of the corrupt propertied class. But Ron Paul and people who support Ron Paul are at least willing to talk about the real issues: the inherently corrupt monetary and banking systems; corporate subsidies, welfare and bailouts; the evil and insane "War on Drugs"; unjustifiable foreign military adventures; the unjust and economically destructive income tax system; etc.

you obviously don't even believe in one of the most important priciples of the liberty movement, namely the right property (yes that includes owning land)

No, it does not. Every great thinker on liberty has recognized the fact that property in land lacks justification. redbluepill provided a number of quotations to that effect.

and all you do is insult people who don't buy into your ridiculous notion that land owning is theft.

No, I demolish their fallacious, absurd and dishonest "arguments." You know this.

So I repeat, why are you here? This thread has gone on for 99 pages...aren't you bored of owning us and destroying our nonsensical, immoral apologies for evil, greedy land owning parasites?

I am wearied, beyond the rich resources of the English language to express, of the relentless dishonesty of apologists for privilege, injustice and evil.

 

[Roy L]

Roy walked through miles and miles of forest, day after day, alone in the woods and the wilds, subsisting mostly on pine nuts and wild berries. Roy was accustomed to being alone, but that did not mean that he was not lonely. Roy was truly a sad, lonely, lonely soul.

Late one afternoon, while rooting for grubs in a felled and rotting tree, Roy spied a column of smoke rising from a small clearing off in the distance. Roy followed this until it he was close enough to see that he had indeed stumbled onto a small settlement.

Ah! I knew it! Roy thought to himself. My natural liberty rights were being violated all along! Were it not for their violations of my natural liberty rights, I would be at liberty to use the very land they are on now. Well, they don't owe me much, because there is other available land around, but they do owe me, by Dog. Perpetually even.

And with that, Roy took a deep, fortifying breath, and set out toward the settlement, to sort out all the willing payers from the evil would be thieves who were oppressing him.

As Roy addressed the several families of settlers as they sat around the fire, a kindly old woman ladled a nice hot bowl of soup for Roy from the large cast iron cauldron that was suspended over the fire.

Roy thanked the old woman, and patiently explained the deprivation he was now suffering because of the natural liberty rights these settlers had deprived him of, given that he would have been at liberty to use this land if were it not for them. Everyone listened intently, politely - wide eyed even, and with rapt interest. Roy felt that he was making progress, and breathed an inner sigh. At last, he felt that he might be witnessing the seeds of a possible dawn of a non-oppressive utopia.

When Roy had finally finished saying his peace, there was silence in the camp. Finally, one of the settler children, a young boy of about 13 years of age with an inquisitive look on his face, approached Roy. In the boy's hand was a long piece of cloth, and in the bottom of that cloth a rock, which the boy brought full circle, with one deft move, into the center of Roy's forehead. This caused Roy to fall backward, unconscious, into the cauldron.

Poor Roy had stumbled onto a rare discovery - the unknown surviving descendants of the Donner Party, who lived by an entirely set of deprivation-based rules of their own. When the freshly provisioned camp broke for higher ground the next day, they decided to deed the land to Roy, including the hole they had dug for his bones, free of charge.

Were you under an erroneous impression that you were making a meaningful contribution to anything?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This is correct. Put up a fence and let everyone around you know it's yours by marking it and then defend it.

Things have gotten so twisted.

There is no such thing as a direct tax in this country. << READ THAT AGAIN TILL YOU GET IT!!

If you think congress has the power to directly tax any SOVEREIGN American, you are lacking in your education.

If you do not understand that each American is a sovereign, you need to read something about it. Like the Declaration of Independence, sheesh.

You cut away from the King, you are now free, you are now sovereign yourself. << WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND?

If some government can DIRECTLY tax you, then you are BELOW THAT GOVERNMENT. You better check the label on your underwear!

And whoever thinks you need a national retail tax to run the government needs to look up how the government ran the first 100 years WITH A BUDGET SURPLUS!!

This is basic stuff that you should have leaned in high school.

If you really believe this, you haven't been paying attention. "Sovereign citizens" ceased to exist long ago.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Lies! All of you are liars! Lies!

 

[Steven Douglas]

Your statement was merely an attempt to deny a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality -- that people are naturally at liberty to use all that nature provided -- by spewing meaningless, dishonest garbage at it.

Let's examine that specifically, and break it down for clarification. Correct me please, or clarify as needed (specifically, please, not just dismissively, as "meaningless" or "dishonest" or "spewing garbage")

ROY: "A self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality -- that people are naturally at liberty to use all that nature provided.

I agree with that on its face. Naturally At Liberty, taken at face value only, simply implies that you are physically capable of walking up and making physical use of all that nature has provided.

Let's extend that:

I am also naturally at liberty to stab someone, attempt to rob a bank, give to a beggar, start a fight, have title to land that I have purchased, or even to propose an LVT tax regime on all land. I am also "naturally at liberty" to plant and harvest my own garden, or sneak into my neighbors yard to harvest his for myself. I am "naturally at liberty" to do all these things, Roy - not because I "may" (license, permission) do these things, and not because it is necessarily my right, but simple because I can. That is what "naturally at liberty" means, having nothing whatsoever to do with right or wrong, good or bad, legitimacy or illegitimacy. So you are correct. It is truly 'self-evident'. On the other hand, I am "artificially at liberty" to do only those things which are lawful.

When you use the phrase "naturally at liberty", however, you don't mean simply that one "can", or even that "they otherwise physically could". For you it has an extended meaning - one which you also believe is "self-evident" - as what you have termed a Natural Liberty Right. That is where "a natural physical capacity" is selectively conflated to imply a "natural liberty right". So let's break that down.

NATURAL - Adj. Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Correct?

LIBERTY - Noun.

1. The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
2. An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.

And we could go to Webster:

1. the quality or state of being free
2. the power to do as one pleases
3. freedom from physical restraint
4. freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
5. the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
6. the power of choice

So it is clear that liberty is power, freedom or enjoyment in some form. Now you have to choose which definition you mean, Roy (even if from another source - you can provide that). And that choice will determine whether the phrase "Natural Liberty Right", as you intend it, is a self-evident truth or a self-contradictory oxymoron.

Now, Natural Liberty Right begins with the word "natural", which implies that the following word, liberty, is also natural in origin. Because if you choose a definition that is artificial, then the term "Natural Liberty" is immediately rendered as a meaningless, self-contradictory oxymoron: a Natural Artificial. So I assume that your are talking about a "natural" capacity, power, or ability, and not an artificial privilege or grant?

RIGHT - Noun

1. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
2. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.
3. adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority.
4. that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.
5. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.

The word RIGHT is where you get into trouble, Roy. All rights are artificial. Likewise, all morality. There is no such thing as a "natural right". Even if you looked at the animal kingdom as being a realm where absolutely everything is done as a matter of a "natural liberty right", you would have to conclude that murder, rape, theft, slavery, cannibalism, are all "natural liberty rights". In which case land ownership, which you consider theft, is actually a "natural liberty right" - just as theft is. And even murder. The only way to make it otherwise is to actually MAKE it otherwise. So rights can be declared, acknowledged, rationalized, enforced, etc., and I have no problem with that - but there is nothing "natural" about them.

There is no property of nature that equates to a "right", and no property of nature that shows intrinsic morality. All human rights are manufactured. OR else they are not, in which case there is as much of a "natural liberty right" to land ownership as there is an LVT.

Natural (objective reality) Liberty (objective reality) Right (subjective, artificial)

This does not make the statement necessarily untrue. You could, by declaration or edict, MAKE a natural physical capacity into an artificial right.

What you cannot do is declare that: NATURAL + NATURAL + ARTIFICIAL = NATURAL

In other words, a NATURAL LIBERTY is not "self-evidently" a RIGHT. It must be made so, and by making it so, it is no longer natural, nor is it self-evident as such.

Care to clarify? At the very least, please define (specifically) what you mean by the following terms.

1. Natural
2. Liberty
3. Right

That alone would be extremely informative. And don't say that they are also "self-evident", because there are multiple definitions. I can choose definitions that will cause your rationale to fall on its face. You can in turn say that's not the definition you meant, and we can back and forth until your finally clarify what, exactly, you meant by each word - and not a self-made, and therefore meaningless, definition of three words taken on the whole.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

No, it does not. Every great thinker on liberty has recognized the fact that property in land lacks justification. redbluepill provided a number of quotations to that effect.

>>incorrect. (btw, I looked through the thread, and I don't see redbluepill's post that you refer to.) Aristotle, Rothbard, and numerous other great thinkers on liberty defended private ownership of land. Those that don't argue for private land ownership generally only make niche contributions to the philosophy of liberty. Why haven't you read William Bradford's account of the failure of commonly owned property in colonial America(Plymouth colony)? Where has the abolishment of private land ownership ever made for a stable and wealthy society?

No, I demolish their fallacious, absurd and dishonest "arguments." You know this.

>>No, you just state and restate fallacious arguments and outright lies.

I am wearied, beyond the rich resources of the English language to express, of the relentless dishonesty of apologists for privilege, injustice and evil.

>>You keep claiming that private land ownership is "evil", "unjust", etc., but cannot logically prove it.

 

[Roy L]

"otherwise at liberty" is your argument in a nutshell, and the genesis of your false dichotomy - your biggest lie - that everyone has a liberty right to occupy the same space as everyone else,

Not only is that not my argument, I don't even know what you imagine it could mean.

given they "would otherwise be at liberty to use"...meaning, "If they did not exist I would have access to their space, wherever it is."

No, if they did not initiate force to deprive me of my liberty, I would be at liberty to use the space nature provided.

You believe in a right based on a non-existent reality.

Nope. The reality is self-evident and indisputable. You just can't dispute it, so you have to claim my argument is something other than I have plainly stated it is.

My right to "otherwise be at liberty to occupy your space" can only end if you cease to exist, because the moment you move, that space becomes exclusively occupied as well.

That is just stupid, irrelevant, dishonest garbage. No one is talking about the space a person's body occupies, and you know it. You merely realize that you have been comprehensively and conclusively refuted, so you are trying to change the subject.

So everyone's "right to otherwise be at liberty" is immediately transferred to any new space you might occupy. No rest for the weary - wherever you go, that space has some measurable value to me, however negligible,

It has no market value, and you know it very well.

that you are taking from me - so pay up, space occupation thief.

I have already refuted that stupid, dishonest garbage. Everyone's body occupies space, so the (yes, literally negligible) obligations all cancel anyway.

When I forcibly remove you out of your spot for non-payment, you will owe me for occupying the new spot I put you in, because my claim to a natural liberty right extends to that space as well. Which makes you an automatic debtor or a thief wherever you go - by virtue of your very existence. I would follow you to the ends of the earth and tax you to death, but what I really want is for you to pay rent for a spot that I consider collectively owned.

You are aware of the fact that that is stupid, dishonest garbage with no relation to what I have plainly written.

And yes - you ARE the ultimate propertarian. Stop lying about that. It is a flagrant tautology regardless how you phrase it.

I haven't phrased your stupid, dishonest garbage at all. You have.

Gypsies, nomads, vagabonds and other wandering souls would be excepted, I assume, because they are always on the move. Wouldn't it be just peachy keen to you - wouldn't that delight your sensibilities if that's all we were on Earth?

Beneath refutation.

Oh, and you did make an exception for me - if I lived underground - provided nobody knows about it, of course, or moved in next door to me.

No, stop lying. You can use the land of your choice for free, with secure tenure, up to the universal individual exemption value. Only when you forcibly deprive others of more than your equal share of the good land do you have to pay anything at all to compensate others for what you take from them.

Somehow association was key.

Only in what you are no doubt pleased to call your, "mind."

It is only if I occupy space in plain view of others that I would owe anything.

That is a bald fabrication on your part. You cannot refute anything I have said, so you make up some sort of stupid, dishonest garbage and attribute it to me. That's just lying.

That's why it is a simple matter of coveting. Don't lie.

I haven't, and won't. You, by contrast, are lying your silly head off about what I have plainly written.

And it is also a tax on free association

<yawn> Lie.

You cannot cluster together and circle your wagons for any length of time without some idiot calling it a "deprivation", and holding out his nasty, covetous tentacle demanding payment for something he did not improve,

Lie. No market value --> no deprivation. No value above the exempt amount --> no payment.

You just lie and lie and lie. You have no choice. I already told you that.

and for which he has no right - not even a half-baked "natural liberty right".

What stops him from just using the land, except your initiation of force?

This is the ABSOLUTE INSANITY of the world we live in now - multiple claims on the same physical wealth - which you have extended to space itself. That's your lie, your insanity, Roy.

No, Stephen, it is only your lie about what I have plainly written, and you know it.

My right to live and to exist requires space that is exclusive to me.

And landowning eliminates that right. Right.

It does not become a privilege-by-proxy because someone figured out how to swallow a BIG FAT LIE in the form of a goofy-stupid false dichotomy which says, in effect, "You have a right to live, but not an exclusive right to your own personal, non-moving space."

That someone would be you, not me. The universal individual land tax exemption I advocate restores the individual rights to life and liberty that private landowning removed: you get secure tenure on enough land to live on, without paying government OR a parasitic private landowner.

Since occupation of space can never be anything but exclusive, your very existence becomes a matter of "privilege of exclusive space occupation" (there is no other kind) which can then be taxed.

Or rather, it might, if that were not stupid, dishonest garbage unrelated to anything I have said. You have no arguments to offer against anything I have said, so you just make $#!+ up and attribute it to me instead of actually quoting me. To be fair, that is slightly less dishonest than Helmuth, who makes stupid $#!+ up and actually claims to be quoting me.

And since the power to tax involves the power to destroy - your very life, which depends upon exclusive space occupation, is subject to being taxed out of existence.

That is an outrageous fabrication. I have stated that LVT restores the equal individual rights to life and liberty by extending a uniform, universal individual exemption for enough good land to live on. It is the landowner's privilege of depriving others of their liberty to use the land without making just compensation that really "taxes" millions of innocent human lives out of existence EVERY YEAR.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That is an outrageous fabrication. I have stated that LVT restores the equal individual rights to life and liberty by extending a uniform, universal individual exemption for enough good land to live on. It is the landowner's privilege of depriving others of their liberty to use the land without making just compensation that really "taxes" millions of innocent human lives out of existence EVERY YEAR.

What is "enough good land to live on"? 10 square meters? 10 acres? How do you plan to achieve this considering the drastically different types of land that exist? (we have everything from arid desert to frozen wilderness in North America alone) Everything you idealize is arbitrary and impractical in the real world.

 

[Steven Douglas]

You can use the land of your choice for free, with secure tenure, up to the universal individual exemption value. Only when you forcibly deprive others of more than your equal share of the good land do you have to pay anything at all to compensate others for what you take from them.

(emphasis changed)

WTF?

Stop the train then, because suddenly I'm all ears.

A "universal individual exemption" - with secure tenure? What does that mean, "secure tenure" based on a "universal individual exemption". How would that differ, in effect, from a "fee-simple" or similar title to land that was based only on such an exemption?

What do you mean by "universal individual exemption", "secure tenure", and specifically how would that play out in terms of taxes, regulatory controls, transfers (e.g., I want to move from Baltimore to Chicago) - and what circumstance could theoretically cause government to forcibly evict, or otherwise move someone with a "universal individual exemption"?

 

[Roy L]

>>incorrect. (btw, I looked through the thread, and I don't see redbluepill's post that you refer to.)

See posts #43 and #57 by redbluepill, and #23 by erowe1.

Aristotle, Rothbard, and numerous other great thinkers on liberty defended private ownership of land.

Aristotle was a great thinker, but not on liberty. He defended slavery. Rothbard, like a number of other thinkers on liberty, defended private property in land, but recognized that unlike property in products of labor, it needed more ingenious and less intuitive defending.

Those that don't argue for private land ownership generally only make niche contributions to the philosophy of liberty.

Flat false. David Friedman, for example, has explicitly conceded that there is no satisfactory justification for appropriation of land as private property. Robert Nozick and Albert Jay Nock have also admitted that property in land is at best a convenient fiction, not a right.

Why haven't you read William Bradford's account of the failure of commonly owned property in colonial America(Plymouth colony)?

Because like socialists and capitalists, he could not tell the difference between land and products of labor.

Where has the abolishment of private land ownership ever made for a stable and wealthy society?

Hong Kong.

 

[Roy L]

What is "enough good land to live on"?

I think the mode land value used per person is a reasonable estimate.

10 square meters? 10 acres? How do you plan to achieve this considering the drastically different types of land that exist? (we have everything from arid desert to frozen wilderness in North America alone)

By exempting VALUE not AREA.

Everything you idealize is arbitrary and impractical in the real world.

It has always worked, to the extent that it has been tried. ALWAYS.

 

[Steven Douglas]

What is "enough good land to live on"? 10 square meters? 10 acres? How do you plan to achieve this considering the drastically different types of land that exist? (we have everything from arid desert to frozen wilderness in North America alone) Everything you idealize is arbitrary and impractical in the real world.

^^ This also.

Is someone other than the individual with the exemption in charge of deciding what "good enough land to live on" means? Because once upon a time in America, the Projects were considered "good enough land to live on". So if this is based on bureaucratic trust OF ANY KIND, by any bureaucratically changeable formula, the entire idea has all the hallmarks of a nasty, rotten, individual-abusive stinker to begin with.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Also, Roy, I don't know why you keep holding up Hong Kong as an example. I've spent a LOT of time in Hong Kong. I renew my Chinese visa there and conduct business there all the time. It just happens to be THE most expensive place to live in the world, whether "buying" (the LVT version) or renting by natural extension (given that even an LVT "purchase" can be sublet, or rented out).