What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[helmuth_hubener]

Here's a pretty good lecture on land:
http://mises.org/media/1754/Property-Land-Contract

To sum it up, he says: OK, so we've got a right to not be aggressed against (this is the 7th lecture in a series and he established this previously), but how do we make it so that applies to property? How is it that if you subjugate this external physical object to your will, you're actually subjugating me to your will and thus aggressing against me? The answer is that if I take and claim the object and make it a part of my ongoing projects, then it's philosophically an extension of myself. If I have an artificial arm, I can consider it a part of me, or at least a part of my ongoing projects, that is, of my life and what I'm trying to accomplish with it, and even though it's not naturally a part of my body, it's still aggression to yank it off of me, just as it would be to do so to my natural arm.

He makes the same point I've made that everything ultimately comes from nature. All the particles in your body, for instance, were not originally there (in fact, there's complete particle-turnover an average of once a month). So they had to be homesteaded from nature, by you or someone else, in order to become a part of that collection of matter that you have total rights and control over, which we call your body. So if that process is valid for the particles we incorporate into our bodies, and also for the particles we incorporate into our projects as clothing, artificial arms, voice auto-tuners, chainsaws, etc., it's not clear why it should be invalid for the Earth-surface-area we incorporate into our projects.

He then goes through various different points that various philosophers have raised objecting to land being property, including Henry George, of course. It's a decent lecture.

If you listen to it, in the end you will reach the inevitable conclusion that LVT is the right choice for mankind.

 

[jascott]

Who are the "authorities" Paul is discussing? Are political rulers in possession of any legitimate authority whatsoever? Or is he referring to ecclesiastical authorities to whom tithes should be paid? Open question.

"Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who exist are ordained by God. Therefore he who resists the authority, withstands the ordinance of God; and those who withstand will receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Do you desire to have no fear of the authority? Do that which is good, and you will have praise from the same, for he is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid, for he doesn’t bear the sword in vain; for he is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to him who does evil. Therefore you need to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For this reason you also pay taxes, for they are servants of God’s service, attending continually on this very thing. Give therefore to everyone what you owe: taxes to whom taxes are due; customs to whom customs; respect to whom respect; honor to whom honor."
Romans 13:1-7.

Paul is unquestionably talking about submitting to (and paying taxes to) the government, not the church.

They can't.

Paul is clearly saying, specifically, that there's a legitimate government (it serves God), it uses force against evildoers (and not against those who do good, which means this is one way to determine whether a government is legitimate or is just a power which has no authority from God), and we're required to pay taxes to it. Since we're required to pay taxes, of course it's authorized to levy those taxes.
My question was, which forms of taxes is a legitimate government authorized to levy?

But since you're disputing my original assumption, now I have to ask, are you claiming that there's no legitimate government, or that there is a legitimate government, but it isn't authorized to levy any taxes?

 

[jascott]

He didn't say, "Caesar's likeness is on this coin - which makes it Caesar's". He only asked whose inscription lay thereon

Then why did he point out (by asking a question which he obviously already knew the answer to) that Caesar's inscription was on the coin? If the correct answer was that we're not required to pay taxes, then why not instead ask whose pocket the coin was in, or who labored to earn the coin?
The question he was asked was about whether we're required to pay taxes, and Jesus made the answer indisputably obvious by reframing the question as a question about the ownership of the coin.

Did that settle the question? Did Jesus answer them plainly? Those who marveled at him evidently thought so. Many could go away from this little hypocritical "tempting exchange" believing that Jesus himself had in fact told everyone to give to Caesar. But that is not what Jesus said.

Jesus didn't come here to deceive. Yes, he sometimes spoke in parables, knowing that his audience wouldn't understand (but they would know that they didn't understand). But he never gave answers to fool people into believing that they understood when in fact they misunderstood.

God owns EVERYTHING.

I already said exactly the same thing to you, in post #967. You even replied to my post.
I also pointed out in that post that ownership, in the sense of anybody besides God owning anything, is actually stewardship. Saying that somebody owns something isn't a denial that God is actually the owner, and the "owner" being discussed is actually a steward. We dispense with that verbosity because we already understand that God owns everything. There's nothing blasphemous about saying that Caesar "owns" the coins which bear his inscription.
God delegated to us stewardship of our bodies. He can take them back. We can subdelegate them, which we partially do when we sell our labor. We can take them back (by quitting our jobs). God delegated to Caesar stewardship of some coins. Caesar subdelegated them to us. He can take them back.
If you don't want to pay taxes, then stop using Caesar's coins (and maybe also get off Caesar's land, which is a major theme of this thread).

I, an American, was made a foreigner in my own country, just as the Jews were foreigners in theirs.

If you're a foreigner, then who are the natives?

 

[Steven Douglas]

Then why did he point out (by asking a question which he obviously already knew the answer to) that Caesar's inscription was on the coin? If the correct answer was that we're not required to pay taxes, then why not instead ask whose pocket the coin was in, or who labored to earn the coin?
The question he was asked was about whether we're required to pay taxes, and Jesus made the answer indisputably obvious by reframing the question as a question about the ownership of the coin.

First, I won't get into a long debate about this, because religious "debates" look mostly silly to me, as I am fairly certain neither of us are about to change our opinions. I think the best we can do is offer our own interpretations, stand on our own positions while allowing others the same right, and let it go at that.

The Pharisees were testing Jesus within the confines of the temple, looking for a way to entrap him into offending someone (multiple factions in the same place). Asking someone to produce a penny revealed the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, because they could not produce such a coin without proving to everyone there, all of whom were fully aware of Jewish law, that they were handling a "graven image", and especially on holy ground - something that was forbidden by Jewish law.

Jesus didn't come here to deceive. Yes, he sometimes spoke in parables, knowing that his audience wouldn't understand (but they would know that they didn't understand). But he never gave answers to fool people into believing that they understood when in fact they misunderstood.

Oh, they understood Jesus' answer, alright, just as Jesus understood the motives behind the questions. It was not "an innocent question", asked merely to establish Jesus' position on a matter. That much was made abundantly clear in the context in which it was given.

I already said exactly the same thing to you, in post #967. You even replied to my post.
I also pointed out in that post that ownership, in the sense of anybody besides God owning anything, is actually stewardship. Saying that somebody owns something isn't a denial that God is actually the owner, and the "owner" being discussed is actually a steward. We dispense with that verbosity because we already understand that God owns everything. There's nothing blasphemous about saying that Caesar "owns" the coins which bear his inscription.
God delegated to us stewardship of our bodies. He can take them back. We can subdelegate them, which we partially do when we sell our labor. We can take them back (by quitting our jobs). God delegated to Caesar stewardship of some coins. Caesar subdelegated them to us. He can take them back.
If you don't want to pay taxes, then stop using Caesar's coins (and maybe also get off Caesar's land, which is a major theme of this thread).

I don't necessarily have a problem with that. However, part of our 'verbosity', as you put it, comes with our use of the words steward and stewardship, which literally means "manager", as opposed to "owner". That's wonderful, and I wholeheartedly agree. However, that does nothing whatsoever to resolve the question at hand as relates conflicting claims of "managership title". In EITHER case, a title is involved.

"Hi there, we are the new stewards/managers of the farm you and your family are living on. God sent us. Get out - you have to go find another job, we'll take it from here."

...and then we fight over whether that is what God intended or not - until the actual owner finally steps in and resolves the matter with finality - like in the parable of the unjust steward.

I don't view stewardship as "non-ownership", but rather "acting ownership", as in temporal control, whether it be our bodies, a resource, or the Earth itself. You are acting as the owner, in the name of the owner, in the absence of the owner. In other words, you have "Power of Attorney". It does not mean that there is no title, no ownership - only that there is a chain of ownership. In secular terms, if you are a company, God is the parent company. God's ownership is Eternal and all-comprehensive, whereas all other ownership is temporal and fleeting. Whether it be called a "right of stewardship" or "right of temporal ownership", it is only when God is considered as a party of interest that the conflict instantly goes away.

If you're a foreigner, then who are the natives?

According to our government, Native Americans are members of sovereign nations - to the extent that they are sovereign...when on their lands. According to me, they are fellow foreigners who were cheated in their own way. I acknowledge their sovereignty - AS THEY VIEWED IT. Individually. (think Dances With Wolves, "It is true that no man can tell another what to do.") Not racially or tribally. Viewing them as collectives - races and tribes - that is, ironically, where they LOST their sovereignty and became segregated to this day.

My final point and position on this - and this is only my position on this matter, having nothing to do with what is commonly viewed or acknowledged by anyone:

The seeds of all society and all government are contained within each individual. It is within you. Government can only derive its own sovereignty from individual sovereignty that has been collectivized. It is not a case where something was created from nothing, or where the sum is greater than the total of the individual parts - where we alone have no sovereignty and no legitimate authority (sole despotic dominion over ourselves). If the quality of our sovereignty is zero, multiplying that by zero should still get zero. I don't see it that way at all. At our very core we all sovereign. We can create a legitimate, sovereign authority only by extension of what already existed - by cooperating and combining our sovereign interests in protection - from fellow sovereigns (foreign and domestic - REGARDLESS of their numbers).

Nor do I accept that my individual sovereignty was "given over" to ANY collective that presumes to exercise sovereignty "on my behalf". If I cannot take back what was presumed to be given over, then I never had it to begin with.

In this light I view each and every real person, as well as the land they inhabit, as a separate Kingdom on Earth.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Dear Mr. Scott:

Who are the "authorities" Paul is discussing?

Paul is unquestionably talking about submitting to (and paying taxes to) the government, not the church.

Oh really? That clear and unquestionable, huh?

So "ejxousiva" is a word defined solely and only as "the government", is that your position?

Here's an alternative position:

Definition

power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases
leave or permission
physical and mental power
the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises
the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege)
the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed)
universally
authority over mankind
specifically
the power of judicial decisions
of authority to manage domestic affairs
metonymically
a thing subject to authority or rule 4c
jurisdiction
one who possesses authority 4c
a ruler, a human magistrate 4c
the leading and more powerful among created beings superior to man, spiritual potentates
a sign of the husband's authority over his wife
the veil with which propriety required a women to cover herself
the sign of regal authority, a crown

King James Word Usage - Total: 103
power 69, authority 29, right 2, liberty 1, jurisdiction 1, strength 1

The same word is used earlier in Romans in asking the question "Hath not the potter power over the clay". It also is used throughout the New Testament to refer to:
the power of the devil (quite frequently)
the power and authority of Christ
Paul's own authority and that of the other Church leaders
power over devils, to cure diseases, tread on serpents and scorpions, etc.
the authority of property-owners over property (land-owners, specifically)
the authority of the chief priests
the power of the various plagues, horses, and beasts in John's Revelation.

Paul is clearly saying, specifically, that there's a legitimate government (it serves God), it uses force against evildoers (and not against those who do good, which means this is one way to determine whether a government is legitimate or is just a power which has no authority from God), and we're required to pay taxes to it. Since we're required to pay taxes, of course it's authorized to levy those taxes.

Paul is "clearly" saying that if one's translation makes Paul say it and makes him say it clearly; that much is true. And if one does not believe James Kallas' and others' argument that Rom. 13:1-7 is a later insertion into the text, not from Paul at all. And if one makes a whole lot of assumptions about modern nation-states, assumptions not shared by Paul and the early Christians since, for one thing, such institutions did not exist and had not yet existed at that time in history. Small details like these do throw some doubt on the "clearly".

But since you're disputing my original assumption, now I have to ask, are you claiming that there's no legitimate government, or that there is a legitimate government, but it isn't authorized to levy any taxes?

Depends what you mean by government. It is legitimate for men to choose to govern and to be governed, and to set up institutions to better take care of the governance, as long as these relationships and institutions are voluntary.

Taxation is fairly universally defined as taking someone else's property involuntarily. It is a theft; specifically it is extortion under threat of theft or kidnapping. So that is an action which is illegitimate, yes. How can a man be authorized to steal from men who have not wronged him? Such an authority cannot possibly exist, unless one does not accept the wrongness of stealing and the rightness of property.

For further exegesis on Romans 13:1-7, I would refer you to this article:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/green-p/green-p11.1.html

Make it a good day!

 

[Steven Douglas]

I'm not a Pauline Christian - I don't follow that Pharisee/son of a Pharisee by the strictest sect (he never renounced that), so whatever he had to say, whether or not he actually said it, is meaningless to me. Saul/Paul referred to himself as an apostle at least nine times, but the others never referred to him as anything but "beloved brother". For all I know, Paul and "his fruits by which he was known" were the tares in the parable of the wheat and the tares. It doesn't matter to me either way - nothing I believe hinges on anything he said or did.

 

[Roy L]

Here's a pretty good lecture on land:
http://mises.org/media/1754/Property-Land-Contract

"Pretty good," that is, compared to the usual feudal libertarian garbage about land, like Rothbard's embarrassingly uninformed, ill-considered, absurd and dishonest anti-LVT screed. Personally, I find Long's voice really annoying: a kind of wheedling, supercilious, Wormtongue-like voice.

To sum it up, he says: OK, so we've got a right to not be aggressed against (this is the 7th lecture in a series and he established this previously), but how do we make it so that applies to property?

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

How is it that if you subjugate this external physical object to your will, you're actually subjugating me to your will and thus aggressing against me?

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

The answer is that if I take and claim the object and make it a part of my ongoing projects, then it's philosophically an extension of myself.

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

If I have an artificial arm, I can consider it a part of me, or at least a part of my ongoing projects, that is, of my life and what I'm trying to accomplish with it, and even though it's not naturally a part of my body, it's still aggression to yank it off of me, just as it would be to do so to my natural arm.

Wrong. An artificial arm is not part of you as your own arm is. The only claim you have to your artificial arm is not that it is "part of your ongoing projects," but that you either made it yourself or paid someone else to make it (or paid someone else who did, etc.), and thus own it without initiating force or depriving anyone else of anything they would otherwise have. If you did not make or buy it consensually, but forcibly took it from someone who had, then it would not be your property at all, however much it might have become "part of your ongoing projects."

He makes the same point I've made that everything ultimately comes from nature.

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

All the particles in your body, for instance, were not originally there (in fact, there's complete particle-turnover an average of once a month). So they had to be homesteaded from nature, by you or someone else, in order to become a part of that collection of matter that you have total rights and control over, which we call your body.

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

Ooops.

So if that process is valid for the particles we incorporate into our bodies, and also for the particles we incorporate into our projects as clothing, artificial arms, voice auto-tuners, chainsaws, etc., it's not clear why it should be invalid for the Earth-surface-area we incorporate into our projects.

OTC, it's absolutely clear: we own the things we rightfully own not because they are part of our "projects," but because they are our PRODUCTS, and would not have existed but for our efforts or the efforts of those we have engaged to produce them. By definition, that can never include the earth's surface area nor any other natural resource, as they already existed without being produced by anyone. It is only the fact that owning products of labor does not initiate force to deprive anyone else of anything they would otherwise have that makes them ownable as property, because that is the only way to own things without violating others' rights.

He then goes through various different points that various philosophers have raised objecting to land being property, including Henry George, of course. It's a decent lecture.

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

If you listen to it, in the end you will reach the inevitable conclusion that LVT is the right choice for mankind.

Funny, I didn't get that from it.

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

 

[eduardo89]

Why does your view that you have a liberty to use all property end at land? Do you have a right to wear my clothes? If I say you can't wear my clothes, isn't that infringing on your liberty? How about your liberty to sleep in my bed? Or to your liberty to drive my car?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Why does your view that you have a liberty to use all property end at land? Do you have a right to wear my clothes? If I say you can't wear my clothes, isn't that infringing on your liberty? How about your liberty to sleep in my bed? Or to your liberty to drive my car?

RoyL declares land ownership to be theft, therefore it is.

 

[eduardo89]

RoyL declares land ownership to be theft, therefore it is.

What about car ownership? Or pet ownership?

Am I denying him the liberty to take my dog out for a walk, and should pay the government a PVT (Pet Value Tax) to make up for it?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What about car ownership? Or pet ownership?

Am I denying him the liberty to take my dog out for a walk, and should pay the government a PVT (Pet Value Tax) to make up for it?

That's been pointed out 3 times that I know of in this thread. Still no coherent answer from Roy L.

 

[Steven Douglas]

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

"something I would otherwise have" (access to) is a key to Roy's meme.

If you barricaded a parcel of land with a force field or an impenetrable wall, and then padded it on the outside so that it wouldn't hurt Roy's body if he slammed angrily against it, it would still constitute an "initiation of force against him" (the force that keeps him out - none of his active initiation of collectivized force to make his way in counts), one that deprived him of [what he firmly believes is his natural liberty right] to "something he otherwise" woulda/coulda had.

It's Anti-propertarian Libertarian Socialism, nothing more.

Good luck, Ireland, hope you manage to dodge that bullet.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

"something I would otherwise have" (access to) is a key to Roy's meme.

If you barricaded a parcel of land with a force field or an impenetrable wall, and then padded it on the outside so that it wouldn't hurt Roy's body if he slammed angrily against it, it would still constitute an "initiation of force against him" (the force that keeps him out - none of his active initiation of collectivized force to make his way in counts), one that deprived him of [what he firmly believes is his natural liberty right] to "something he otherwise" woulda/coulda had.

It's Anti-propertarian Libertarian Socialism, nothing more.

Good luck, Ireland, hope you manage to dodge that bullet.

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

 

[eduardo89]

That's been pointed out 3 times that I know of in this thread. Still no coherent answer from Roy L.

Well now it's been pointed out 4 times for those who don't have time to read over 100 pages of utter garbage.

 

[Roy L]

Why does your view that you have a liberty to use all property end at land?

You are again lying, repeat, LYING about what I have plainly written. You always have to lie, because there is no way to rationalize evil and justify injustice but by lying, and so you lie.

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

Do you have a right to wear my clothes? If I say you can't wear my clothes, isn't that infringing on your liberty? How about your liberty to sleep in my bed? Or to your liberty to drive my car?

<sigh> I have stated very clearly, many times in this thread, that PRODUCTS OF LABOR ARE RIGHTLY PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SOMETHING OTHERS WOULD OTHERWISE BE AT LIBERTY TO USE. They have to be provided BY PRODUCERS. Natural resources not only ARE not provided by any person, they CANNOT be, by definition.

You will now again ignore all facts, and again lie about what I have plainly written.

 

[Roy L]

RoyL declares land ownership to be theft, therefore it is.

You are lying. I have proved it is. Remember?

THE BANDIT

Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.

A thief, right?

Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a license issued by the government of one of the countries -- or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has a land title to the pass. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in "rent" for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his business really changed? It's all legal now, but he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return, just as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is he any different now that he is a landowner?

And come to that, how is any other landowner charging rent for what nature provided for free any different?

 

[Roy L]

That's been pointed out 3 times that I know of in this thread. Still no coherent answer from Roy L.

You are lying. I have stated the relevant facts DOZENS OF TIMES IN THIS THREAD. All that nature provides, I am naturally at liberty to use. I don't need anyone else's help, and they can only stop me by initiating force to deprive me of my liberty. Products of labor, by contrast, I am NOT naturally at liberty to use, as someone else had to produce them.

How many times do I have to repeat these facts before you will stop lying about them?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You are lying. I have proved it is. Remember?

THE BANDIT

Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.

A thief, right?

Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a license issued by the government of one of the countries -- or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has a land title to the pass. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in "rent" for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his business really changed? It's all legal now, but he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return, just as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is he any different now that he is a landowner?

And come to that, how is any other landowner charging rent for what nature provided for free any different?

Problem is, you haven't proved it. That's just a bunch of hot air. It's already been pointed out that land ownership existed before governments did. I also demonstrated that experiments in abolishment of land ownership failed consistently. Then there's the natural rights philosophers who've demolished your arguments for a few hundred years. Yet you ignore it because it's an inconvenient truth.

 

[Roy L]

Well now it's been pointed out 4 times for those who don't have time to read over 100 pages of utter garbage.

The utter garbage is all from apologists for greed, privilege and injustice. You have been comprehensively and conclusively demolished, and you cannot refute a single sentence I have written. Simple.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You are lying. I have stated the relevant facts DOZENS OF TIMES IN THIS THREAD. All that nature provides, I am naturally at liberty to use. I don't need anyone else's help, and they can only stop me by initiating force to deprive me of my liberty. Products of labor, by contrast, I am NOT naturally at liberty to use, as someone else had to produce them.

How many times do I have to repeat these facts before you will stop lying about them?

You stated false facts. I wasn't and am still not impressed.