What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Roy L]

Roy is like a pit bull on a ragged chew toy with that one. He lacks the capacity - truly has no space in his brain - to see that there really is enough land to go around for everyone.

No, stop lying, Steven. I have stated that there is enough land for everyone; those who own it just won't let others use it unless they pay rent for exercising their rights to liberty.

Whether that is true or not makes no difference whatsoever to Roy.

Whereas Steven chooses deliberately to lie.

You could completely outlaw and abolish all land speculation and rental practices, public or private, and Roy would still see private land ownership, in his truly limited mindset, as somehow forcing others to labor on behalf of fellow landowners (even if, hypothetically, everyone was a landowner, and nobody ever paid rents of any kind).

Sure: say one person owns all the land on earth, the rest of us all own land on Mars. The landowners who have no way to get to their Martian land, or to survive on it if they could, must serve the guy who owns all the land on earth, or die. They don't pay any rent. They just work for him all day as his slaves in return for food enough to live.

Steven always has to refuse to know this indisputable fact: if you don't own enough good land to live on, and government (or private charity) does not intercede on your behalf, you must either serve a landowner or die. Steven must refuse to know that fact, because he has already realized that it proves his beliefs are false and evil.

In Roy's mind, the mere fact of land ownership means that you are depriving others of what they otherwise had the natural liberty to use

And also in objective physical reality.

- which he sees as an objectively self-evident and undeniable fact of nature,

Which it indisputably is.

which he wants declared as a right,

Recognized. Not "declared."

as in "all people have an equal liberty claim to all land usage at all times"

You either believe people have equal rights to liberty or you don't. You don't. Simple.

- based on the philosophy and writings of King Henry George.

It has nothing to do with Henry George, which is why I neither call nor consider myself a Georgist. I didn't even know who Henry George was until someone on Usenet called me "a modern day Henry George."

Roy conflates government, community and nature as a single unit,

No, that is another lie Steven is telling. I am careful to distinguish them and the different things they provide to the land user. Steven is just telling lie after lie after lie. Stop lying, Steven.

which he say "provides" both land and its value.

By definition, nature provides the land and the physical qualities that may make it more or less valuable depending on how people want to use it (soil that may make land more advantageous for agriculture may make it less advantageous for building a skyscraper; but either way, nature is the one providing it). Government provides services and infrastructure that make the land more advantageous to use, the community provides opportunities and amenities that make it more advantageous to use. The landowner qua landowner does not provide anything to the user except pockets hungry for rent.

Roy is not in favor of making it possible to eliminate rent,

Steven is to be congratulated at this point, as he has actually posted part of a sentence that is not a lie. Rent is a natural phenomenon of the market, and necessary to efficient allocation. That is why land nationalization on the socialist/communist model is wrong-headed and cannot work.

or rent-seeking (as this, of course, would defeat his favorite taxing scheme).

No, recovery of publicly created rents for public purposes and benefit is not rent seeking. Rent seeking is when PRIVATE interests try to pocket publicly created rents.

He favors an exemption for individuals, but for land value determined and controlled by government only.

No, Steven just continues to lie, as usual. The exemption is for land RENT, not value. Land rent is determined by the market, though it is of course strongly influenced by government activities. Land value, specifically, is strongly influenced by taxes.

For as positively evil as rent-seeking is in his mind when private landownership is concerned, he emphatically supports rent-seeking as the exclusive power of government.

See above. Steven just refuses to know the fact that recovery of publicly created rent for public purposes and benefit is just, while private appropriation of publicly created rent for private purposes and benefit is unjust, because he has already realized that that fact proves his beliefs are false and evil.

Then, in his mind, it is not parasitic, given his erroneous view that government "provides" infrastructure (as opposed to those who actually do pay for it, and establish government for that purpose, among others.)

Steven is now trying for a new world record in dishonesty, and just might achieve it. He knows that it is accurate, correct and honest to say that GM provides cars even though it is employees who actually do the work and shareholders who established the company for that purpose. He just decided deliberately to lie again, and claim that we can't accurately use the word, "government" to describe the provider of benefits that people and communities avail themselves of by means of that institution. It's a stupid and puerile lie, so it fits in very well with every other "argument" he has offered.

Like so many well-intending but completely misguided would-be social engineers before him, Roy honestly believes that what is evil of individuals (as HE sees it) cannot be evil for government, so long as it aligns with his ideology, his intentions, his plans.

No, with the facts of objective physical reality, which I merely identify.

That is where government becomes special, and subject to exceptions. Everything else, of course, would be tyranny and evil.

Government has a particular job to do, which only it can do. Mature and honest people are willing to know that fact. Childish, lying, $#!+-for-brains "meeza hatesa gubmint" propertarians are not. Simple.

 

[redbluepill]

Incorrect. The only productive tax is tariffs and other fees on imported goods.

Tariffs are far from productive. Only certain corporations benefit from tariffs (and the politicians who profit from them). Other companies and consumers pay the price for the tariffs that benefit a few.

What makes you think the tax would go back into the economy in an efficient, "fair" way? The tendency is for tax money to be used for welfare (for corporations even moreso than individuals) and warfare.

Geolibertarians call for a decentralization of government to complement a Georgist system. Decentralized governments are less likely to use tax dollars for corporate welfare or warfare.

Why is it important that landowners not let their land "sit idle"? One of the reasons people buy land is so they can enjoy it and be relatively idle as well as improve their living standards.

Because there is something wrong when someone can hoard large tracts of the best land while others are crammed into hovels.

The reason some countries have such huge gaps between rich and poor is because the government enables theft from the poor and usually destroys the middle class entirely. Mexico, for example, is cleptocratic. (Eduardo can tell you all about this) If the government weren't destroying and stealing wealth, more people would have it. As bad as things are in this country, "poor" people still have luxuries that truly poor people in 3rd world countries could never dream of.

The government allowed for the theft of land already occupied by the natives. Up until the early 20th century nearly all the land was owned by only around 800 something landlords. Those landlords could essentially force the peasants to work on their ranches for very little pay. That was a huge contributor to the wealth gap and I believe it is the biggest contributor to poverty around the world.

Curious, how would you deal with this kind of situation in a poor country? Because it seems like a lot of so-called ‘libertarians’ would allow the landlords to continue to own all the excess land despite the fact it was granted to them by the government. These are the ‘vulgar libertarians’ Karl Carson warns about. Those who are apologists for the current situation despite the fact it is and was nothing like a free market.

And yes, its not nearly as bad in the US because you didnt have the land grabs you see in Central and South America. However, the land grabs were worse in the South (due to their plantation economy) which is major contributor to the wealth gap in that region.

 

[redbluepill]

Yes, and under a purely Keynesian system, "liquidity" and "elasticity" would only be used in cases of emergencies, to help ease the economy in the case of monetary deflation, to help keep an economy from going into a deflationary depression.

I don't look at just the ideals or intentions of any system. I also look at the ever-present players, public and private, who would operate under its regime, and who have already proved ready, willing and able to exploit. So my only concern, even if I thought it was workable, effectual or desirable in the ideal (which I certainly do not in this case), is how easy it is to get around or otherwise exploit - publicly AND/OR privately. Despite all the stated ideals, this one has nothing but massive exploitation and the potential for tyranny and oppression written all over it.

It took a hundred years of monetary policies that were VERY difficult to get around and exploit before the founders of the Federal Reserve system to finally overcome the few principles that were in place, which seeded the corruption and debasement of the money supply that took another hundred years to finally trash the world's economy. Georgist ideology doesn't even require a hundred years to exploit (again, publicly or privately). It can already go hand-in-hand, side-by-side with any taxing system. And whatever governments do now to exploit property "assessed" values -- that already fits like a glove into a Georgist LVT system, regardless of how well-intended are the "more pure" proponents' visions and best intentions.

GUBMINT: "Slurp, gulp, thanks for your LVT system, Georgist pointy-heads. We get what you were trying to do, but that probably won't be enough, to be honest. We have a lot to accomplish, a lot more to envision, imagine, and to get done fer da gud o' da peephole - so we'll take it from here and make it REALLY work! Kudos for your great addition, BTW." ::: pat pat pat :::

Why do you think I'm a libertarian? Any system can be corrupted and controlled to benefit the elitists. Break up the the US into hundreds of city states so everyone can pick the society that best suits their world view. I will choose the one that best suits mine.

 

[Steven Douglas]

No, stop lying, Steven. I have stated that there is enough land for everyone; those who own it just won't let others use it unless they pay rent for exercising their rights to liberty.

Not quite, liar.

MOST landowners do not charge and are not interested in any rents, at any price. You are just excluded, that's all. It is my home, my land (let's assume it is more land than any LVT exemption would ever allow). It is not for rent, there is no "unless they pay", since payment is not being offered as an option, so bugger off.

Furthermore, we already established that an "otherwise naturally at liberty" capacity does not establish, and is not the same as, "rights to liberty" -- not unless we first adopted the Georgist philosophy and declared "legally recognized" it a defensible right. So you might consider leaving that cart from that horse until we actually hitched it thereto. Very slippery of you, Roy, presuming rights that have not been declared recognized or acknowledged, but only presumed.

Sure: say one person owns all the land on earth, the rest of us all own land on Mars. The landowners who have no way to get to their Martian land, or to survive on it if they could, must serve the guy who owns all the land on earth, or die. They don't pay any rent. They just work for him all day as his slaves in return for food enough to live.

Wow, I see your point. One ENTITY owning all land and charging rents really would create a slave market, wouldn't it! I see the light, Roy. Even if a slave owner promised a massive return of great benefits and blessings to all the slaves (like, oh, say, free lodging, as opposed to free food, for all slaves), it would still be slavery. Clear so far! Yes, that would be despicably terrible if any such entity tried any such thing. I say draw and quarter such bastards for even thinking along those lines.

Well. I guess the only way to prevent one entity from pulling such a dastardly monopolistic rent-seeking stunt would be to make it so that as many people could own land of their own as possible. Any artificial barriers to individual landownership could be declared criminal. That should do the trick, yeah?

Steven always has to refuse to know this indisputable fact: if you don't own enough good land to live on, and government (or private charity) does not intercede on your behalf, you must either serve a landowner or die.

No, Roy, on this we are in FULL agreement.

Now read carefully, Roy, because without regard to agreement or disagreement between us, this is what forever separates us:

We both agree that there is a fundamental difference between landowners and renters. We also agree that government should intercede (or stop interceding, depending current laws and/or on your POV) in a way that allows, or even causes, an elimination of these differences.

Your idea of eliminating the difference is for "meeza wuvs gubmint" to assume all ownership, and to eliminate private ownership altogether. You want the shoe transferred onto the other foot, where you believe it forever remains. Then, by tapping into what you see as "publicly created value" of those who occupy and use land exclusively, you can pay for "living" exemptions for individuals.

My idea of eliminating the difference between landowners and renters is to unblock all artificial barriers to ownership by everyone - thus making it possible, and at least eliminating artificial barriers, for everyone to be entirely free of rents - not just for shelter, but for their labor pursuits as well.

And I also expect that to result in an unequal distribution of valuable lands. I don't have a problem with that. I'm not a "meeza needs gubmint to redistribute land value" kind of dork. If you're sitting on the best mining claim - the only shaft that is producing real big nuggets from a motherlode, and everyone around you is coming up with sludge and powder, my first thought isn't to be a collectivized claim jumper. That would be theft, Roy. No "naturally otherwise at liberty" observation would equate to a right to equal access, AKA - a rationale FOR THEFT. No, if you found and claimed it first, then screw me and everyone else's coveting asses.

Now, if you wanted to stake a claim on an entire mountain or valley as your own, to enhance your chances at being "lucky", by preventing others from even looking, I would naturally tell you to screw yourself, and involve government in the removal of such an artificial and unrealistic barrier. But if you truly have the best claim that is of a size that you can actually work? Well, good for you, Roy, and tough shit for everyone else.

I will never buy into the notion of publicly "created" value, because not all the "public" was involved in that creation. Even with public roads, the fact that we must offer a right of passage on publicly created roads is NOT because it is "publicly created value". It is ONLY because rights of ingress and egress - actual physical liberty to cross boundaries and get from point A to B, which rights existed prior to the creation of that road. The road itself, and improvements thereof, could have been PRIVATELY funded and created, and it would make no difference. The land itself, on the other hand - the millions of point A's and B's - that isn't "publicly created value", for which I would be willing to acknowledge the public as having any rightful claim.

You want it to be otherwise. You want an exclusive mining claim to be rented only - because you want everyone to have a "natural liberty right to access ALL that nature provides". And I'm all for a giant smack-down of that kind of nasty everybody-owns-everything thinking.

Neither the latecomers and newcomers to the community, nor the government that was HIRED by the community to create common roads, city lights, police and fire departments, can take credit for, or have any kind of actual claim on, value taken from the land itself (with few exceptions, like water rights and such). And barring your "otherwise naturally at liberty to use all that nature provided" observation (which you want "recognized" as an actual right) there is no "publicly created value" to tap into.

I don't "recognize" what I see as your serious distortion of reality as being real enough to be legally "declared".

You either believe people have equal rights to liberty or you don't. You don't. Simple.

Nice generalization. I do believe that people have the right to ingress and egress - to get freely from point A to point B unmolested. Oh...wait...that's not what you meant by "liberty", is it? You meant "at liberty", as in a "positive claim" to access ALL POINTS that you would "otherwise be at liberty" to access.

No, I don't believe in that particular kind of "liberty" at all as a right that I would want the law to "recognize". Sounds positively, despicably monstrous to me.

It has nothing to do with Henry George, which is why I neither call nor consider myself a Georgist. I didn't even know who Henry George was until someone on Usenet called me "a modern day Henry George."

I don't care what you call it, or where you got it from. If you independently discovered the Coanda Effect, I would still refer to it as the Coanda Effect.

By definition, nature provides the land and the physical qualities that may make it more or less valuable depending on how people want to use it (soil that may make land more advantageous for agriculture may make it less advantageous for building a skyscraper; but either way, nature is the one providing it).

Yes, 'tis correct. And also correct that land is not, generally speaking, fungible.

Government provides services and infrastructure that make the land more advantageous to use...

Yes, just as construction workers "provide" services and "infrastructure" that make my land more advantageous to use. That would be correct as well. And when I pay them, they go away. Then comes the landscaper, gardener, the pesticide guy, and the security guy that installs the alarms. Each of them are paid, some one time, some ongoing - but that's that. They "provide" goods and services, as part of contracts, which are always paid for. Not ONE of these entities has a rightful claim on anything but the contract THEY COMPETED FOR and the moneys they received as a result of FULFILLING those contracts. After that, our business is concluded, and I can hire and fire each and every one of them at will.

NEXT...

...the community provides opportunities and amenities that make it more advantageous to use.

What can be called a defining characteristic of "community" cannot be converted to a claim of ownership, entitlement or control by any single entity. That nebulous thing called "the community" is not government, but individuals, society, and commerce, and is comprised of me and other private entities and interests, most of whom/which are neither public nor are they "affected by the public interest" (legal term, just in case you didn't know). That is without regard to our free and separate associations, or even the associations we might have in common.

Nobody owns me (an integral part of the community), nor can they credit themselves for ANY part which I freely take (or abstain from taking) in "the community". Nor, can it be said, that "the community" is some kind of homogeneous blob that is fully interconnected. Everyone has their own market, their own interests, their own "division of labor".

Steven is to be congratulated at this point, as he has actually posted part of a sentence that is not a lie. Rent is a natural phenomenon of the market, and necessary to efficient allocation.

Not quite. As we know from the examples of landowners and government itself, RENT is not an universal phenomenon. We can debate whether it is "natural" or not (or even whether "the market" is natural), but rent itself is not universal.

That is why land nationalization on the socialist/communist model is wrong-headed and cannot work.

It is actually why land nationalization using ANY model is wrong-headed and cannot work. George and Marx's antagonism to one another is just as meaningless to me as the arguments of the progressive left and conservative right, as who should be in control of, and benefit most from, a collectivized money pool. The answer: NEITHER OF YOU THIEVING BASTARDS. DO NOT COLLECTIVIZE IT IN THE NAME OF ANYTHING. A pox on both their houses for even thinking in those terms, and a pox on the house of both George and Marx for their maniacal and market enslaving and manipulative collectivization thoughts as well.

 

[redbluepill]

"In my life, I have prayed but one prayer: oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it.”

Ben Franklin

Kind of ridiculous you guys would declare libertarians who support the LVT to be your 'enemies' when we probably agree with you guys on 95% of other issues. You don't see this type of animosity towards those who support the National Sales Tax, flat tax, tariffs, etc.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Kind of ridiculous you guys would declare libertarians who support the LVT to be your 'enemies' when we probably agree with you guys on 95% of other issues. You don't see this type of animosity towards those who support the National Sales Tax, flat tax, tariffs, etc.

You do know that the term "enemies" is figurative, don't you, and that the animosity is toward the issue more than the person? And note also that nobody is calling for banning or censorship over this. Try that on a far left or right site.

In reality, we would only be true "enemies" if we actually went to war over the issue. Of course, come to think of it, I don't think that either of us would be opposed to actually going to war over it. I know Roy wouldn't. He implied as much early on in the thread. I know I definitely wouldn't.

All that to say, we can pull up our big girl panties and disagree as vehemently and as passionately as we want to. It's all part of public debate and discourse. If it got truly ugly, the mods could intervene at any time, it's what they're there for.

 

[Roy L]

Kind of ridiculous you guys would declare libertarians who support the LVT to be your 'enemies' when we probably agree with you guys on 95% of other issues. You don't see this type of animosity towards those who support the National Sales Tax, flat tax, tariffs, etc.

Of course not. You have to be ultra-defensive when you are serving the greatest evil in the history of the world. You can't permit yourself to know any facts, so you have to attack anyone who identifies facts as viciously and dishonestly as possible. That's why feudal "libertarians" -- actually propertarians, worshippers of the Great God Property -- always attack geoists with a howling, maniacal ferocity that makes their typical treatment of fascists, communists or even monarchists look like fawning deference.

 

[Roy L]

I think you summed up his point of view quite well.

Yes, you think that because everything he said about my point of view was a flat-out lie. The lies about what I have plainly written have to be big enough, stupid enough, and dishonest enough to rationalize an annual Holocaust before you will approve and agree with them. You need to see clear evidence that there is an excuse -- it doesn't matter how absurd -- for you to force billions of people into permanent poverty and murder 15 million of them a year, for money.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Of course not. You have to be ultra-defensive when you are serving the greatest evil in the history of the world.

The greatest evil in the history of the world is The State. Humanity never saw such ultra-violent crime as the State commits before the moment that States arose. The State even gives itself the authority to prevent people from owning land, you know. It can also throw people off of land at will, unlike landowners.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

To paraphrase one of the commonly recurringly repeated exchanges in this thread:

Evil Parasite: "Beating up people is not an effective way of dealing with others."

Roy L.: "Actually, beating people up has proven itself historically to be a very effective way of dealing with people. Mature adults realize this. This is just more 'meeza hate beating up people' puerile nonsense."

Evil Parasite: Silence (while thinking "Is it even worth it to reply to this guy? Nah.")

Roy L.: "How's that not-beating-people-up thing going for ya in Somalia? Point, set, match. Thou Hast Been Utterly Destroyed."

Evil Parasite: "Uh huh."

 

[Roy L]

The greatest evil in the history of the world is The State.

Laughable, childish mewling. The contrast of Slovenia with Somalia proves you wrong. Why can't you ever remember that?

Humanity never saw such ultra-violent crime as the State commits before the moment that States arose.

Of course it did. The ultra-violent crime was just committed piecemeal, one torture-murder at a time, and was not recorded because before the state arose, no one ever learned to write. And if the state had not arisen, no one would ever have learned to write.

The State even gives itself the authority to prevent people from owning land, you know.

Nope; no one can possibly own land in the first place without the state's help. Never happened, never can.

It can also throw people off of land at will, unlike landowners.

You know that landowners demand a privilege of depriving others of their liberty -- "throwing them off of land" -- at will. Of course you do.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Laughable, childish mewling. The contrast of Slovenia with Somalia proves you wrong. Why can't you ever remember that?

Of course it did. The ultra-violent crime was just committed piecemeal, one torture-murder at a time, and was not recorded because before the state arose, no one ever learned to write. And if the state had not arisen, no one would ever have learned to write.

Nope; no one can possibly own land in the first place without the state's help. Never happened, never can.

You know that landowners demand a privilege of depriving others of their liberty -- "throwing them off of land" -- at will. Of course you do.

WRONG!!!! Somalia has never invaded another country/land and murdered thousands of people. Your desperation is getting the better of you. No Stateless society has the means to commit mass atrocities. More than 90 MILLION people were killed by various State forces during WWII alone. The entire population of Somalia is only ~9 million. You are either just joking or INCREDIBLY ignorant. Get yourself a copy of "Democracy: The God That Failed", by Hans Herman-Hoppe.

There was no such means for this kind of mass murder before the rise of States. Bringing up the subject of state sponsored land ownership is just a red herring, but it isn't true anyway.

All that book-learnin' you did fails you again. I suggest again that you demand a refund from whomever mal-educated you so.

 

[Steven Douglas]

You know that landowners demand a privilege of depriving others of their liberty -- "throwing them off of land" -- at will. Of course you do.

It is a recognized and fully defensible right of ownership in this country, not a privilege, Roy. That means that a landowner throwing someone off their land would be closer to "depriving others of their confinement" than anything as they get tossed out into the open, because, once again, people don't have a "liberty right" to trespass on what the law recognizes as privately owned land. That "meeza gubmint" thing - which you mistakenly think we all hate, but really don't - protects us from that. And you. For now, anyway, and with every bit as much force as you would like exercised by the same "gubmint" to see it all work in reverse.

So until We Da You-know-who decide to enact your kooky landownership rights abolishment scheme, we are, by definition, a "propertarian" regime. And your blah blah that compares it to Somalia, and equates landownership to slavery while blaming it for all the bloodshed, poverty, and other ills in the world, all sounds like tinfoil hat wearing gooberness to most people - including your relentless followup screeds about it only being because of agreeing with lying, evil apologists and such. But we see your NYAH! and raise you two NYAH's!

Go ahead and propose your geoist anti-propertarian nonsense until your face turns blue, but don't expect anyone to engage in Georgist-centered language with you, as you argue from your own premises, as if they were already recognized and manifested. Until the day we "recognize" what your fuzzy mind thinks ought to be obvious to everyone, the reality is that we now "recognize" (to the degree that we do) a thing called "property rights". Not privileges. Rights. And since you don't have a recognized "liberty right" claim of access to all land, let alone all that nature provided, regardless of your moral-ish reasoning, you are not being deprived of anything but a personal normative on your part - not a "right", just one of Roy's "oughta be's" - which I am more than happy to deprive you of. So, on the contrary, Roy, only the one being thrown off the land is treading on recognized rights, as they have no legally "recognized" rights to trespass, steal, or otherwise deprive others of what the law, not Roy, recognizes is exclusively theirs -- as a matter of right.

Capisci?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It is a recognized and fully defensible right of ownership, not a privilege, Roy. That means that a landowner throwing someone off their land would be closer to "depriving others of their confinement" than anything, because, once again, people don't have the "liberty right" to trespass on what the law recognizes as privately owned land. That "meeza gubmint" thing - which you mistakenly think we all hate, but really don't - protects us from you. For now, anyway.

So until We Da The-know-who decide to enact your kooky landownership rights abolishment scheme, we are, by definition, a "propertarian" regime. And your blah blah that compares it to somalia, and equates it to slavery while blaming it for all the bloodshed, poverty, and other ills in the world, all sounds like tinfoil hat gooberness to most people - including your relentless screeds about it only being because of lying, evil apologists and such. But we see your NYAH! and raise you two NYAH's!

Go ahead and propose your geoist anti-propertarian nonsense until your face turns blue, but don't expect anyone to engage in Georgist-centered language with you, as you argue from your own premises, as if they were already recognized and manifested. Until the day we "recognize" what your fuzzy mind thinks ought to be obvious to everyone, the reality is that we now "recognize" (to the degree that we do) a thing called "property rights". Not privileges. Rights. And since you don't have a recognized "liberty right" claim of access to all land, let alone all that nature provided, regardless of your moral-ish reasoning, you are not being deprived of anything but a personal normative on your part - not a "right", just one of Roy's "oughta be's" - which I am more than happy to deprive him of. So, on the contrary, Roy, it is only the one being thrown off the land that is treading on recognized rights, as they have no legally "recognized" rights to trespass steal, or otherwise deprive others of what the law recognizes is theirs -- as a matter of right.

Capisci?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Steven Douglas again. Well done. Roy, as usual, confuses "is" and "ought".

 

[redbluepill]

You do know that the term "enemies" is figurative, don't you, and that the animosity is toward the issue more than the person? And note also that nobody is calling for banning or censorship over this. Try that on a far left or right site.

In reality, we would only be true "enemies" if we actually went to war over the issue. Of course, come to think of it, I don't think that either of us would be opposed to actually going to war over it. I know Roy wouldn't. He implied as much early on in the thread. I know I definitely wouldn't.

All that to say, we can pull up our big girl panties and disagree as vehemently and as passionately as we want to. It's all part of public debate and discourse. If it got truly ugly, the mods could intervene at any time, it's what they're there for.

My point is that I highly doubt you speak this passionately against the sales tax or income tax. National Sales Tax threads never get this heated. And no, don't blame Roy when he has to hold his own against continuous attacks from numerous posters who dont do their own research.

 

[Roy L]

It is a recognized and fully defensible right of ownership in this country, not a privilege, Roy.

It's not defensible, as we have seen proved in this thread, and it is indisputably a privilege because it is a legal entitlement to profit by the uncompensated violation of others' rights, as also proved in this thread.

That means that a landowner throwing someone off their land would be closer to "depriving others of their confinement" than anything as they get tossed out into the open,

The "open" that is owned by other landowners....?

That's clearly just another stupid lie from you, Steven.

because, once again, people don't have a "liberty right" to trespass on what the law recognizes as privately owned land.

Wrong AGAIN. That is nothing but question begging. The law is merely an attempt to formalize and codify rights, it does not and cannot confer rights. Slavery proved that. Why can't you ever remember that, Steven? Why can't you ever remember that as all your "arguments" would equally have justified slavery, they are known in advance to be fallacious, with no further refutation necessary?

That "meeza gubmint" thing - which you mistakenly think we all hate, but really don't - protects us from that.

Oh, I know you don't really hate government, Steven. You rely on government to enforce your privileges for you, and to violate others' rights for your profit. You just hate PAYING for the profits government shovels into your pockets, and demand that your victims be forced to pay for them instead, so you can get something for nothing, like a greedy little piggy.

And you. For now, anyway, and with every bit as much force as you would like exercised by the same "gubmint" to see it all work in reverse.

Wrong again. Government has to exercise a lot more force to enforce your privileges for you than it would need to exercise to establish liberty and justice.

So until We Da You-know-who decide to enact your kooky landownership rights abolishment scheme, we are, by definition, a "propertarian" regime.

And getting more and more so, true. You are going to see where that leads, Steven. But you are not going to be honest enough with yourself to know how it got there.

And your blah blah that compares it to Somalia,

I never claimed propertarian tyranny was similar to anarcho-capitalism, stop lying.

and equates landownership to slavery while blaming it for all the bloodshed, poverty, and other ills in the world,

Not all, just most.

all sounds like tinfoil hat wearing gooberness to most people - including your relentless followup screeds about it only being because of agreeing with lying, evil apologists and such. But we see your NYAH! and raise you two NYAH's!

Content = 0.

Go ahead and propose your geoist anti-propertarian nonsense until your face turns blue, but don't expect anyone to engage in Georgist-centered language with you, as you argue from your own premises, as if they were already recognized and manifested.

I simply identify indisputable facts and their inescapable logical implications.

Until the day we "recognize" what your fuzzy mind thinks ought to be obvious to everyone, the reality is that we now "recognize" (to the degree that we do) a thing called "property rights". Not privileges. Rights.

<yawn> As the "arguments" adduced to rationalize property "rights" in land are the same as those used to rationalize slavery, we already know that they are not rights at all, but merely unjust privileges.

And since you don't have a recognized "liberty right" claim of access to all land, let alone all that nature provided, regardless of your moral-ish reasoning, you are not being deprived of anything but a personal normative on your part

That "argument" would also justify slavery, and is therefore known in advance to be fallacious.

- not a "right", just one of Roy's "oughta be's" - which I am more than happy to deprive you of.

I am aware that you desire to violate others' rights without making just compensation.

So, on the contrary, Roy, only the one being thrown off the land is treading on recognized rights, as they have no legally "recognized" rights to trespass, steal, or otherwise deprive others of what the law, not Roy, recognizes is exclusively theirs -- as a matter of right.

Law does not define rights. Slavery proved that. Why can't you ever remember that, Steven?

 

[Roy L]

WRONG!!!! Somalia has never invaded another country/land and murdered thousands of people.

?? Somalia's murders are mostly of Somalis by Somalis, of course -- though hundreds of foreigners have been murdered by Somali pirates.

Your desperation is getting the better of you. No Stateless society has the means to commit mass atrocities.

That's what I said. The atrocities of stateless societies are of necessity piecemeal, not mass. That doesn't mean they are fewer.

More than 90 MILLION people were killed by various State forces during WWII alone.

Yes, and the reason there were ever 90 million people there to kill in the first place -- and billions NOT to be killed, whom you conveniently ignore -- was that states prevented 9 BILLION piecemeal murders.

The entire population of Somalia is only ~9 million. You are either just joking or INCREDIBLY ignorant.

<sigh> You could with equal "logic" point to the vast amount of wealth states take from producers by taxation and shriek, "Private thieves only take a tiny fraction of that amount!" -- conveniently ignoring the fact that without the state to keep the peace and PREVENT private theft from producers, 99% of that wealth -- including almost all the wealth producers get to KEEP -- would never and could never have existed in the first place. The superficiality of your "thinking" is breathtaking.

Get yourself a copy of "Democracy: The God That Failed", by Hans Herman-Hoppe.

ROTFL!!! Hans-Hermann Hoppe (get the spelling right, dude) is one of the stupidest, most dishonest, irrational and evil lying sacks of $#!+ who ever lived. Virtually every sentence he writes is a lie. He is the original high priest of the propertarian religion, who demands that millions of human sacrifices be laid on the altar of his Great God Property EVERY YEAR. Anyone who would cite that foul, vile, despicable, disgusting, loathsome, anti-rational, anti-scientific, anti-economic, anti-human, anti-truth, anti-liberty, anti-justice, lying sack of rotten pig $#!+ is simply confessing that they are totally and infinitely evil.

There was no such means for this kind of mass murder before the rise of States.

True: there could never have been that many people in the first place, as the poverty and sky-high murder rate typical of stateless societies would have kept the population down -- as Somalia's population would be if it were not getting so much aid from societies WITH states. You just have to ignore that fact.

Bringing up the subject of state sponsored land ownership is just a red herring, but it isn't true anyway.

It is indisputably true. No state --> no landowning.

All that book-learnin' you did fails you again. I suggest again that you demand a refund from whomever mal-educated you so.

This, from a creature so ignorant, irrational, miseducated and dishonest that he cites the execrable Hans-Hermann Hoppe???!?!?!

ROTFL!!!!!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

My point is that I highly doubt you speak this passionately against the sales tax or income tax. National Sales Tax threads never get this heated. And no, don't blame Roy when he has to hold his own against continuous attacks from numerous posters who dont do their own research.

Ha, ha! No, by all means, don't blame Roy. Roy is a paragon of Rightness and Brilliance which we all should emulate, when we're not shielding our eyes.

By the way, Redblue, there was a conversation you and I were having which you dropped. That conversation was somewhat interesting.

 

[Roy L]

To paraphrase one of the commonly recurringly repeated exchanges in this thread:

Evil Parasite: "Beating up people is not an effective way of dealing with others."

Roy L.: "Actually, beating people up has proven itself historically to be a very effective way of dealing with people. Mature adults realize this. This is just more 'meeza hate beating up people' puerile nonsense."

Evil Parasite: Silence (while thinking "Is it even worth it to reply to this guy? Nah.")

Right, because the Evil Parasite needs to evade the fact that beating people up is a method of dealing with others that is so effective, we have to take extraordinary measures -- including beating up the people that are most keen to rely on beating up others -- to stop it from being overused, and ending with all of us constantly getting beaten up.

The destroyer has such an enormous cost advantage over the producer that no significant wealth production can take place unless the destroyers are prevented from using that cost advantage to extort all the wealth from the producers. That is why states exist. Learn it, or remain ignorant and irrelevant permanently.

Roy L.: "How's that not-beating-people-up thing going for ya in Somalia? Point, set, match. Thou Hast Been Utterly Destroyed."

Evil Parasite: "Uh huh."

Yep.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Why do you think I'm a libertarian? Any system can be corrupted and controlled to benefit the elitists. Break up the the US into hundreds of city states so everyone can pick the society that best suits their world view. I will choose the one that best suits mine.

Microsecession FTW! However, it doesn't seem like RoyL would have this. Landowners everywhere and on every continent would need to fear RoyL's regime's wrath if he ever got his way.