What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Roy L]

Then there is the question of "legitimacy" (Roy seems really big on democracy). We could always just put the matter to a popular vote. In that case, 50 votes are in favor of an LVT on you, and 51 are not, as you become the "legitimate" tie-breaker. But not in Roy's mind. The government is only legitimate when it follows what he views as non-evil, "self-evidently just", blah blah... He has his own criteria for legitimacy, thus bringing you full circle to the fundamental reality of Roy's mind. If all people on Earth voted 99.9999% against an LVT, and 99.9999% in favor of property ownership, he would still consider it evil. Of course, he'll argue that such an hypothetical vote is just silly, as it isn't even possible (and of course it isn't), but that's irrelevant to the point that he wouldn't accept it as a matter of principle even if it was.

There are two components to political legitimacy: valid function (securing and reconciling the equal rights of all) and democratic oversight. Neither is enough on its own, but democratic oversight is particularly tenuous. The great majority of people are of average or below average intellect, so they can easily be swayed to support tyranny. Policy can be determined by majority vote. Truth cannot. Accepting that the law is what it is is not the same as accepting that it is right.

 

[Roy L]

Is someone other than the individual with the exemption in charge of deciding what "good enough land to live on" means?

It is an equal amount of land by value for all, to be chosen in the market much as people currently choose their dwelling locations. Those who preferred to be tenants would simply transfer their exemptions to their landlords for as long as they were living in the rented accommodation.

Because once upon a time in America, the Projects were considered "good enough land to live on".

Housing projects were generally built on fairly valuable land. If left to the market, the housing built there would have been quite acceptable.

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.

I have suggested the mode (most frequent) land value used per person is a good enough number, and it's a statistic not subject to bureaucratic revision. I don't think the precise amount of the exemption matters very much, as long as it is equal for all. Anywhere around 10%-20% of per capita rent would probably work well enough, depending on local conditions.

 

[Roy L]

Also, Roy, I don't know why you keep holding up Hong Kong as an example.

Many silly apologists for landowner privilege claim private landowning is necessary to liberty and/or prosperity. Hong Kong proves it isn't. In fact, quite the contrary. Hong Kong, with no private landowning, is consistently ranked the freest country in the world, and has been one of the most prosperous for several decades, even without any natural resources to speak of.

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).

No, HK may be the most expensive place to buy a house, but millions of ordinary working people manage to live there quite well and at modest cost, most of them in publicly owned housing. The HK government has unfortunately been following a policy of artificially restricting supply to increase its land revenue, shoveling vast unearned wealth into landholders' pockets, rather than just increasing the fraction of rent it recovers and thus reducing the welfare subsidy to landholders.

 

[Roy L]

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?

You would choose where you wanted to live in the market, much as people do now, but you wouldn't have to pay a purchase price for the land to a parasitic private landowner, and as long as you didn't use more than the exempt amount of desirable land, you wouldn't have to pay any land tax to government, either. The tax would only be levied on the amount of land value you excluded others from over and above the exemption amount.

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"?

The universal individual land tax exemption would be the amount of land value considered necessary for a normal person to avail himself of the opportunities and advantages government, the community and nature provide -- i.e., to participate in society as a productive citizen. It would be analogous to the universal individual income tax exemption, except that it would be the exact same amount for every resident citizen. No adjustments for married couples, singles, children, etc. Families living in the same dwelling (i.e., on the same taxable land parcel) would pool their exemptions. I envision LVT as being primarily local, so the exemption amounts would likely be different in Chicago and Baltimore. Your tenure would be somewhat more secure than with a private landlord, as if the land rent increased, you would still have the option of just paying it. If you used more than the exempt amount of land and didn't pay the tax, you would likely be dispossessed in favor of someone able to use the land more productively and more willing to pay for the advantages of which he deprived others.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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

Yes, until the feeders outnumber the producers. Then it all collapses like a clumsy house of cards. In the long term, it always fails. You need to start thinking one or more generations ahead. You will then outgrow your blissfully ignorant loathing of land ownership.

 

[eduardo89]

What happens to a familys land exemption when a child grows up and moves out? Would they be forced to tear down the portions of their home not included in the exempted land if they couldn't afford the tax?

 

[Roy L]

I have to repeat this - if Roy had excluded individuals - homesteads specifically - I'd be right on board.

Do you mean "homesteads" to denote initial appropriations, as private property, of land others had previously been at liberty to use without appropriating? Or to denote resident-owned dwellings? The latter are generally the subject of "homestead exemptions" from property taxes, while the former are frequent subjects for Helmuth's lies.

I do not believe in property "rights", or rights of ownership of land for any but homesteaders. Individuals, as a matter of right. Not for governments, corporations, foreigners, fictitious collectives of any kind, and not as a commodity to be speculated on or traded in bulk or mass quantities. They really can all be driven out on a rail, as far as I am concerned, abolished (in the form of government) or taxed completely out of existence if they don't serve the public interest. But not sovereign individuals one to another - that truly is evil.

The only problems for me are where to VERY CAUTIOUSLY draw the line with individuals. If I see a Warren Buffet buying up an entire state, that bastard's got some 'splainin to do. If I see a farmer taking on a thousand acres, my only question is whether it's being farmed, or just farmed out. But if he's biting off what he can really chew, I don't have a problem with that. House flippers, land speculators, commercial developers, etc., can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned. Then it really is a question of whether it serves a public interest or not. They are acting as a matter of privilege in such cases, and I don't have a problem with slapping them into their places - especially if it affects the ability of the middle, working, and poorer classes to own land of their own.

Stephen, please consider the possibility that you actually want the results that LVT (with a uniform, universal individual exemption) would achieve, but just do not know enough economics to understand how LVT would achieve them.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Stephen, please consider the possibility that you actually want the results that LVT (with a uniform, universal individual exemption) would achieve, but just do not know enough economics to understand how LVT would achieve them.

Again, you (and Steven) are making this stuff up arbitrarily. Who cares if Buffet buys a bunch of property? He also has to bear the burden of opportunity cost, maintenance, etc.

 

[Roy L]

What happens to a familys land exemption when a child grows up and moves out? Would they be forced to tear down the portions of their home not included in the exempted land if they couldn't afford the tax?

As improvements have no effect on their LVT liability, that would be a singularly stupid and futile response. So no wonder you thought of it so quickly.

If they couldn't afford the tax after deducting their lower pooled exemptions, they'd seek accommodation in a location better suited to their needs and means (hurray for the market!), or find some way to use the land more productively (they might know someone else who would like to live there, or a neighbor might want to use some of their vacant land for parking their RV, gardening, etc.). Lots of people are willing to pay for a room to sleep in, or room and board, and their exemptions would come with them. The homeowners might even put in a basement suite and become small-time landlords.

 

[Roy L]

Again, you (and Steven) are making this stuff up arbitrarily.

Garbage.

Who cares if Buffet buys a bunch of property?

Everyone who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.

He also has to bear the burden of opportunity cost, maintenance, etc.

So does the purchaser of a slave -- except that land, by definition, needs no maintenance.

 

[eduardo89]

Everyone who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.

If they want to use the land Buffet bought, why don't try offer to buy or rent it from him?

 

[Roy L]

Yes, until the feeders outnumber the producers.

ROTFL!! It is landowners who are the "feeders," sunshine. The landowner qua landowner is a pure parasite. That is why Hong Kong is so brilliantly successful: it doesn't feed the parasites as much. It is also why 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?"

Then it all collapses like a clumsy house of cards.

False. What usually happens is that people forget why private landowning doesn't work, and let it gain control. That is always fatal.

In the long term, it always fails.

It is landowner privilege that always fails in the long term. The historical record is very clear on that. Landowner privilege has destroyed many great civilizations.

You need to start thinking one or more generations ahead.

There has been no private landowning in Hong Kong for over 160 years. It shows no sign whatever of collapsing like a clumsy house of cards. By contrast, landowner privilege and the associated land speculation very nearly collapsed the whole world's economy just three years ago.

HELLO???

You will then outgrow your blissfully ignorant loathing of land ownership.

IMO you will never outgrow your blissfully ignorant servitude to greed, privilege, injustice and evil. The historical record is also very clear on that: the privileged prefer to perish in blood and flame, and to watch their children slaughtered before their eyes, rather than to relinquish even the smallest material part of their unjust advantages. The servants of privilege defend it even when it is destroying their society right in front of them.

 

[Roy L]

If they want to use the land Buffet bought, why don't try offer to buy or rent it from him?

"Why, if you want your liberty, Uncle Tom, why don't you offer to buy or rent it from me?"

 

[heavenlyboy34]

ROTFL!! It is landowners who are the "feeders," sunshine. The landowner qua landowner is a pure parasite. That is why Hong Kong is so brilliantly successful: it doesn't feed the parasites as much. It is also why 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?"

Land is not "owned" by the government in Hong Kong. It is leased to owners by the government. This is not significantly different than the system that exists here. Production is aided by land ownership because the owner has incentive to care for it and be productive. Google William Bradford.

False. What usually happens is that people forget why private landowning doesn't work, and let it gain control. That is always fatal.

It is landowner privilege that always fails in the long term. The historical record is very clear on that. Landowner privilege has destroyed many great civilizations.

There has been no private landowning in Hong Kong for over 160 years. It shows no sign whatever of collapsing like a clumsy house of cards. By contrast, landowner privilege and the associated land speculation very nearly collapsed the whole world's economy just three years ago.

Still wrong. Private land ownership always works. Google "Tragedy Of The Commons". Also consider the failure of collectivization of property/land in the Soviet Union. Did you know that smog and air pollution in Hong Kong is causing a brain drain and talent diaspora? The root cause seems to be soot created from mainland factories who are not held liable for their negative externalties (1). Were the property privately owned, this problem wouldn't exist.

HELLO???

IMO you will never outgrow your blissfully ignorant servitude to greed, privilege, injustice and evil. The historical record is also very clear on that: the privileged prefer to perish in blood and flame, and to watch their children slaughtered before their eyes, rather than to relinquish even the smallest material part of their unjust advantages. The servants of privilege defend it even when it is destroying their society right in front of them.

You keep claiming history proves the "evils" and "failure" of land ownership, but it doesn't.

 

[Roy L]

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.

Right. Capable of doing so WITHOUT ANY HELP FROM OTHERS, and free to do so unless someone else initiates force to stop you, thus depriving you of what you would otherwise have.

I am also naturally at liberty to stab someone, attempt to rob a bank,

No, you can't do those without someone else supplying the victims.

give to a beggar, start a fight,

No, you need other people to help you do those things.

have title to land that I have purchased,

"Having title" is irrelevant unless you purpose to initiate force to stop others from using that land. So again, there is no natural liberty to own land. A person alone is naturally at liberty to use land, but it takes others' recognition of his title for him to own it.

or even to propose an LVT tax regime on all land.

That does not require others, but makes no sense for a man alone.

I am also "naturally at liberty" to plant and harvest my own garden,

Congratulations! You got one right!

or sneak into my neighbors yard to harvest his for myself.

Nope. You can't do it alone. For you deprive your neighbor of products of his labor that he would otherwise have, he has to supply the products.

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.

Nope. YOU CAN'T DO THEM WITHOUT OTHERS' ASSISTANCE.

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'.

I thought it was, but I guess not....

On the other hand, I am "artificially at liberty" to do only those things which are lawful.

Appeal to law is question begging in a discussion of public policy. Law is supposed to secure and reconcile people's rights. It does not define those rights.

When you use the phrase "naturally at liberty", however, you don't mean simply that one "can", or even that "they otherwise physically could".

Right. I mean they can do it without any help from others.

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".

No, unlike the fact of liberty, the right to liberty is not self-evident.

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

Correct?

Yes. But one must be careful here, as while humankind is itself a product of nature (evolution), what we do is not. It's a bit subtle.

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.

No, the natural right to liberty is more basic than that.

And we could go to Webster:

[*]the quality or state of being free
[*]the power to do as one pleases
[*]freedom from physical restraint

This is probably closest, but is not clear that physical restraint imposed by nature -- one can't fly by flapping one's arms -- is not a violation of liberty. We mean freedom from physical restraint BY OTHER PEOPLE.

[*]freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
[*]the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
[*]the power of choice

What we were talking about was freedom from initiation of force by others. This is a technical sense of the term that probably won't be found in ordinary dictionaries.

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.

It's neither. It's a contingent fact.

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?

This gets tricky. There are legal rights (uninteresting and irrelevant here), societal rights (constraints that societies impose by consensus on their members' actions towards each other, which laws normally try to formalize as public policy), and natural rights, the societal rights we would have if people were all wise and honest, and knew all they had to know to understand rights.

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.

Legal and societal rights are artificial. Natural rights arise from the facts of human nature, which are products of evolution, not human artifice (leave aside that our human ancestors influenced each other's evolution in various ways -- it wasn't deliberate).

Likewise, all morality. There is no such thing as a "natural right".

I have defined natural rights above. We do not know for certain what they are, but they are facts of nature, not products of human artifice.

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".

Social animals could be said to have rights among themselves, corresponding to their instinctive behavior restraints, but that is not like conscious human 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 natural liberty to do things that require others to provide victims.

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.

I disagree with this view, as explained above. Natural rights are properties of human nature. They are essentially facts we don't know yet.

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.

Neither landowning nor LVT is natural.

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

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

I have explained the sense in which natural rights are not artificial: they are products of human nature, not human artifice.

In other words, a NATURAL LIBERTY is not "self-evidently" a RIGHT.

I agree. Rights are not self-evident.

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

[*]Natural

Not a product of human artifice.

[*]Liberty

Not constrained by others' initiation of force.

[*]Right

Societal constraint on its members' behavior with respect to each other.

 

[Roy L]

Land is not "owned" by the government in Hong Kong.

It is indisputably owned by the government, and you are just flat-out lying.

STOP LYING!

It is leased to owners by the government.

That is an absurd self-contradiction. All that is happening here is that you have realized Hong Kong proves you wrong, so you have no choice but to lie about it. And so you are lying about it. Simple.

This is not significantly different than the system that exists here.

It is utterly different. You are either deeply ignorant of Hong Kong, or lying.

Production is aided by land ownership because the owner has incentive to care for it and be productive.

No, he does not. He has no incentive whatever to do anything but pocket the rent from the high bidder:

"The most comfortable, but also the most unproductive, way for a capitalist to increase his fortune is to put all his monies in sites and await that point in time when a society, hungering for land, has to pay his price." -- Andrew Carnegie

Google William Bradford.

Google, "ignoratio elenchi." I've already explained to you why Bradford's claims are irrelevant.

Still wrong. Private land ownership always works.

No, it always creates inefficiency, parasitism, injustice and economic instability. You saw how landowning "works" three years ago, when it almost destroyed the world economy.

Google "Tragedy Of The Commons".

ROTFL!! Garrett Hardin, the author of "Tragedy of the Commons," advocated land value taxation! You are destroyed.

Also consider the failure of collectivization of property/land in the Soviet Union.

I have. You haven't. The Soviet Union collectivized products of labor as well as land, so that's like claiming wine is poisonous because some people have had poison mixed into their wine. In fact, the Soviet Union was largely fed by the produce of "private plots": but the difference between collective farms and private plots was not in who owned the land (it was all state owned) but in who owned the crops.

You are again destroyed.

Did you know that smog and air pollution in Hong Kong is causing a brain drain and talent diaspora? The root cause seems to be soot created from mainland factories who are not held liable for their negative externalties (1). Were the property privately owned, this problem wouldn't exist.

Such claims are just profoundly stupid. Pollution is even worse in India, where the land IS privately owned.

You keep claiming history proves the "evils" and "failure" of land ownership, but it doesn't.

Of course it does. Private landowner privilege destroyed ancient Egypt's Old Kingdom; it destroyed Athens; it destroyed the Western Roman Empire; it destroyed China at least three times; it destroyed Vietnam; it destroyed Russia; it destroyed France's ancien regime; it destroyed Mexico; the list goes on and on.

 

[Steven Douglas]

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.

Right. Capable of doing so WITHOUT ANY HELP FROM OTHERS, and free to do so unless someone else initiates force to stop you, thus depriving you of what you would otherwise have.

Well, that last was a boatload of begged questions, but I can't move forward on the rest until this one is examined, especially in light of this statement:

"...one must be careful here, as while humankind is itself a product of nature (evolution), what we do is not. It's a bit subtle."

A bit subtle? A bit subtle can mean vague, obscure, dependent on one's perspective, not well thought out, or it can even be the stuff of lies.

I don't buy into the idea that whatever happens with all life on Earth, including human thought and action, was not a product of nature. That is self-evident to me, with no ambiguity in my mind, or need to "be careful". I would not buy into a any anthro-flattery that suggested otherwise, or tried to exempt us from what we are. I accept that we are more evolved, more capable of reason, and powers of negotiation, and a host of other capacities that are not enjoyed by any other forms of life - but I still include these as yet another product of nature.

Part of "all that nature provided" is humans - that to me is as self-evident as the so-called "self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality -- that people are naturally at liberty to use all that nature provided."

Where the wheels fall off:

"Right. Capable of doing so WITHOUT ANY HELP FROM OTHERS, and free to do so unless someone else initiates force to stop you, thus depriving you of what you would otherwise have."

So you'll have to explain that one. A criminal is "naturally at liberty", which to me means only that he has "the natural physical capacity" to commit a crime against someone. But you appear to have a different definition, or at least a different stated intent which is not clear, for what "naturally at liberty" means. Somehow, in your mind, to be "naturally at liberty" precludes other human involvement. The reason is unstated, but somehow this is also a "self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality." That is a case you have not made.

Also, you stated that you had "defined natural rights, above" (several re-readings and I still could not find the definition you alluded to), but in the very next sentence you say that "We do not know for certain what [natural rights] are...". And yet somehow, despite not knowing with any certainty what natural rights are, you claim that these are "self-evident" "facts of nature"? I have yet to see you articulate what, exactly, makes it "self-evident" and "indisputable".

 

[eduardo89]

"Why, if you want your liberty, Uncle Tom, why don't you offer to buy or rent it from me?"

Garbage.

Liberty is not the same as land. No one can own your liberty. You can't compare buying or renting land from someone to buying or renting your freedom of speech or life.

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Roy L]

Liberty is not the same as land.

But owning land unilaterally removes others' liberty just as owning a slave does. The only difference between owning land and owning a slave is that when you own a slave, you remove all of one person's liberty, while when you own land, you remove one of all people's liberties.

No one can own your liberty.

Wrong. Every landowner owns part of your liberty. If you are a slave, one person owns all your liberty. That makes it easier to understand that slavery means someone else owns your liberty, but it is just as true for landowning.

You can't compare buying or renting land from someone to buying or renting your freedom of speech or life.

I just did, and I have proved the similarity is very close.

Don't be ridiculous.

We have been through this before. If Crusoe owns the island, he can give Friday the choice of being his slave, or getting back in the water. He owns Friday's liberty. Every landowner is privileged to charge others a fee for exercising their liberty.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Garbage.

Liberty is not the same as land. No one can own your liberty. You can't compare buying or renting land from someone to buying or renting your freedom of speech or life.

Don't be ridiculous.

There you go using logic. Roy L will not have that!!!11!