What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[eduardo89]

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.

<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.

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

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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.

No matter how many times you write this, it still won't become true, wishful thinker.

 

[eduardo89]

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.

I'm not bothering to refute any of your bullshit arguments. Anyone with half an understanding of liberty will see all the nonsense you spout are nothing but the rantings of a deranged lunatic. Everything you say is garbage from apologists for envy, laziness and a sense of entitlement to others' property. Your own arguments and demeanor comprehensively and conclusively prove how utterly stupid your defense for an LVT and stance against private property are.

 

[Roy L]

Problem is, you haven't proved it.

Yes, I most certainly have. How is the proud and respected landowner contributing any more in return for the rent than the lowly, despised bandit did in return for the loot, hmmmmmmmm?

<crickets>

That's just hyperbole.

No, it is self-evident and indisputable fact.

It's already been pointed out that land ownership existed before governments did.

No, that has been claimed, but is in fact false. There has never been land ownership without government, and never can be. Forcible animal possession is not ownership.

I also demonstrated that experiments in abolishment of land ownership failed consistently.

No, you most certainly did not. You only demonstrated your willingness to lie that experiments in abolition of property in products of labor were experiments in abolition of property in what is not and cannot be a product of labor. Hong Kong proves that freedom and prosperity are entirely consistent with a total absence of private landowning.

Yet you ignore it because it's an inconvenient truth.

No, you are lying. I did not ignore it. I proved that what you claimed was lack of property in land was in fact lack of property in products of labor. Our ancestors lived for millions of years without property in land, and did just fine. Hong Kong proves that private property in products of labor is the key to freedom and prosperity, not private property in land.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not bothering to refute any of your bullshit arguments. Anyone with half an understanding of liberty will see all the nonsense you spout are nothing but the rantings of a deranged lunatic. Everything you say is garbage from apologists for envy, laziness and a sense of entitlement to others' property. Your own arguments and demeanor comprehensively and conclusively prove how utterly stupid your defense for an LVT and stance against private property are.

+a bunch. Roy L should try telling a bear that it is stealing by its owning property. (wild animals are territorial and will attack invaders)

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, I most certainly have. How is the proud and respected landowner contributing any more in return for the rent than the lowly, despised bandit did in return for the loot, hmmmmmmmm?

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

 

[Roy L]

I'm not bothering to refute any of your bullshit arguments.

Of course not. You can't, and you know it.

Anyone with half an understanding of liberty will see all the nonsense you spout are nothing but the rantings of a deranged lunatic. Everything you say is garbage from apologists for envy, laziness and a sense of entitlement to others' property. Your own arguments and demeanor comprehensively and conclusively prove how utterly stupid your defense for an LVT and stance against private property are.

Content = 0... other than your constantly repeated LIE that my stance is "against private property."

 

[Roy L]

The onus is on you to prove your claim because you are making the positive assertion. You still haven't done it.

Yes, of course I have. Claiming that I have not cannot change that fact.

HOW IS THE LANDOWNER CONTRIBUTING ANY MORE IN RETURN FOR THE RENT THAN THE BANDIT DID IN RETURN FOR THE LOOT?

Your inability to answer that question is conclusive proof that the landowner is indeed a thief.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

other than your constantly repeated LIE that my stance is "against private property."

That is your stance, except you limit it specifically to land.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, of course I have. Claiming that I have not cannot change that fact.

HOW IS THE LANDOWNER CONTRIBUTING ANY MORE IN RETURN FOR THE RENT THAN THE BANDIT DID IN RETURN FOR THE LOOT?

Your inability to answer that question is conclusive proof that the landowner is indeed a thief.

WHY IS THE LANDOWNER OBLIGED TO CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING? Your claim that a landowner is obliged to provide is conclusive proof that you are wrong-from your presuppositions on up. You also fail to realize that land ownership is a liability, not a pure asset. Acquiring liabilities can NEVER logically be considered theft.

 

[Roy L]

+a bunch. Roy L should try telling a bear that it is stealing by its owning property. (wild animals are territorial and will attack invaders)

<yawn> Forcible animal possession is not property. Animals have to defend their own possessions of territory, food, etc. Property means society will defend the owner's possessions for him.

 

[Roy L]

WHY IS THE LANDOWNER OBLIGED TO CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING?

Because he is taking wealth from the merchant caravans by force, just as the bandit was.

Taking wealth by force without contributing anything in return is precisely what makes him a thief. Hello?

Your claim that a landowner is obliged to provide is conclusive proof that you are wrong-from your presuppositions on up.

He is most certainly obliged to provide if he is going to be anything other than a thief. That is the point.

 

[Roy L]

That is your stance, except you limit it specifically to land.

Thanks for agreeing that you lied about what I have plainly written.

 

[Jtorsella]

Yes, of course I have. Claiming that I have not cannot change that fact.

HOW IS THE LANDOWNER CONTRIBUTING ANY MORE IN RETURN FOR THE RENT THAN THE BANDIT DID IN RETURN FOR THE LOOT?

Your inability to answer that question is conclusive proof that the landowner is indeed a thief.

Land is in an unclaimed state naturally. Men are not infringing upon anyone's rights when they claim unowned land. Men are infringing rights when they steal owned property. If the landowner is a thief, who is he stealing from? Furthermore, why are you on this forum if your position is anathema to any of RP's beliefs?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Land is in an unclaimed state naturally. Men are not infringing upon anyone's rights when they claim unowned land. Men are infringing rights when they steal owned property. If the landowner is a thief, who is he stealing from? Furthermore, why are you on this forum if your position is anathema to any of RP's beliefs?

He doesn't even know. He's just turning natural law philosophy on its head to troll the forums.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Land is in an unclaimed state naturally. Men are not infringing upon anyone's rights when they claim unowned land. Men are infringing rights when they steal owned property. If the landowner is a thief, who is he stealing from?

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

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

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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

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

lolz

 

[Roy L]

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

Because that's what defines a violation of rights.

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.

And that is indisputably correct. It is the same kind -- though a lesser degree -- of the violation of my right to liberty as if the wall was around me instead of around the land. Enough of those walls around enough land, and it IS a wall around me. That is very much the point.

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

Nothing to do with socialism, stop lying.

 

[Roy L]

Land is in an unclaimed state naturally. Men are not infringing upon anyone's rights when they claim unowned land.

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

Men are infringing rights when they steal owned property.

Men are infringing rights when they claim to own other men's rights to liberty.

If the landowner is a thief, who is he stealing from?

From all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land. Read the story of the bandit and try to find a willingness to know the facts it identifies.

Furthermore, why are you on this forum if your position is anathema to any of RP's beliefs?

I don't think LVT IS anathema to Ron Paul's beliefs, he just doesn't know how to implement his principles consistently. I do. LVT is the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to make taxation fair and economically benign.

 

[Roy L]

He doesn't even know.

Lie. I have stated it repeatedly.

He's just turning natural law philosophy on its head to troll the forums.

Funny how I can defend everything I have said, and you can't.