What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[eduardo89]

This thred still going? No, no, no, and Hell NO.

 

[Roy L]

Oh, that's easy. Just call it a birthright.

Identifying the fact of natural liberty.

An equal and inalienable "right of access and usage" inheritance. Then we all become joint heirs, fully and equally entitled, in theory, with no labor required.

Rights are things we inherit from our forebears without having to work or pay for them.

The state is not the owner, but rather more like the executor of a will. This will never gets fully executed, of course. The heirs are treated as minors, idiots, incompetents

Someone here evidently is projecting....

- wards of the state in perpetuity, under the governance of local trustees who must be appointed/elected/whatever.

Innat wonderful?

The joint heirs remain joint heirs forever - but only as joint wards of the [e]state.

Pure fabrication.

There are no individual claims of ownership of land, as that would violate the equal claims of the others (in that community only). Furthermore, the strength of your individual claim of access and usage very much depends on your proximity to the center of the community - with a Catch-22, as proximity to the center is also dependent on your ability and willingness to pay more than your fellow so-called heirs - given they will give more in return for what has been taken from you (and everyone else).

Another fabrication. Everyone is at liberty to be as close to the center as they please -- but the closer to the center they want to be, the less land they will be able to deprive others of without making just compensation.

This all forms a nice theoretical circle of value returned by others in exchange for value taken from you, as a member of the community.

Correct.

How these "returns of value" get back to you and the others is another story.

One you will no doubt now make up.

It is not returned directly to you or any other joint heir.

"Not returned directly"? I don't know how it could be returned any more directly. Certainly the value taken is returned, in the form of the universal individual exemption. This restoration of the individual right to liberty, enabling all to use enough good land to live on for free, is a very direct return of the value taken by those who exclude others from more good land than their own share. It is indeed more direct than a cash payment, as there is no intermediate transfer of value through the state's hands.

The community is acting as a corporation, which may or may not pay any dividends, and which may or may not owe you, an equal shareholder, anything at all.

You are not a shareholder in the community, as the community cannot be owned and is therefore not a corporation.

You, me, and everyone else, who are tantamount to idiots and wards of the state,

Steven speaks only for his own likely condition should he be relieved of his unjust privileges.

cannot receive a return of stolen value directly. This "return of value", in the form of land rents collected, is to the [e]state itself only, not to you, which state will then decide what to do that is in the best interests of the estate. This is why it is a form of fascism, or statist capitalism, with the full assumption that whatever serves the best interests of the estate is also in the best interests of the wards, or "joint heirs" thereof.

That is why if the state is not democratic, it functions effectively as a private landowner like Saudi Arabia, which is the Saud family's private estate.

In other words, whatever the state collects and uses, even if all the majority of that revenue was used to provide more infrastructure to the center of the community, is all counted as full remuneration to you.

As your exemption gives you free access to it. Right.

That is where the Catch-22 comes full circle, because the strength and quality of your "equal right of access and usage" claim, as a ward of the trustees who exercise full control of the rules of the estate, fully depends on your proximity to the center of that estate/community.

No, it does not. The farther out you are, the more land you can use for free.

In other words, you have to be in a community to have any claim, but proximity to the center once you are in the community boundaries is only available to those who can promise to pay more.

Lie refuted above. There is merely a trade-off between proximity to the center and the amount of land you can use for free.

Those who are in the center: pay the most, and have the greatest claim. The further you get from the center, the less you pay, and the less claim you have.

Oh, and when a community provides infrastructure, so that you can have an easier commute from the outskirts to the center - that somehow counts as better "access" to the center. Not exclusive usage. Just "access".

"Somehow" meaning, "in fact."

You have a pioneering spirit, and recognize that there is PLENTY of land available on the Earth, for which you, a proper and devout believer in Georgist/Geoist principles, have an equal right of access to - one that extends to use of ALL other lands, most of which is unused. Just go completely out of that community, you think, and into between-community lands that no community uses. From there you may not even have to compete with those in other communities. But you might be able, given enough time. Why, you can establish a community of your own.

No. You cannot do that.

Yes. You can. Stop telling stupid lies.

That forbidden fruit is the rank hypocrisy of Georgist ideology's Garden of Eden Collectives, as you will not be permitted to use, and you will have no claim on, between-community lands.

That is a lie. You are perfectly at liberty to use them. Just not to OWN them.

Too many of your fellow Georgist ideologues have erroneously concluded that community precedes all else; not just as a matter of possibility, but by legislative decree. Thus, you may not live without proximity to an already existing, established community.

That is another stupid lie, Steven. Why are you telling so many stupid lies?

Oh, wait a minute, that's right: you have no choice.

Not because you are unable, or physically incapable, but because the state will not permit it.

You are lying, Steven. LYING.

Communities are FIAT.

That is a LIE.

Like legal tender, it is not a question of whether you will belong to an existing community, but only which community you will belong to at any given time.

You are free to not belong to a community. You just aren't free to violate the rights of those who do.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Roy, you stink. Seriously, this is the eve of our Victory, and you're going to come in here spouting your junk like nothing even happened? At least congratulate us on a great showing for the cause of Liberty and for Ron Paul.

Also, in case you didn't know, your posts are completely worthless. You just spew. And then you spew. And then you spew some more. You are the worst emissary LVT has ever had. Any cause you even remotely support any healthy, happy person would seriously question and rethink whether they wanted to be part of, just because someone like you is associated with it.

You really need to get your life in order, get some happiness, focus on things in your own life that you have control over, set goals and achieve them, etc. This mania for LVT is really dragging you down. I'm telling you, it's not my and Steven's overwhelming evil that's making you physically ill to read our posts. You're doing that to yourself.

Just think about it.

 

[Steven Douglas]

You know what's funny, Helmuth? If Roy was in charge of LVT implementation, I really do believe that he really would give access to ALL lands, including go-jillions of acres of currently restricted BLM lands. I believe that completely.

I have lived in "communist/socialist" China, and know that I could survive just fine under most political regimes - even those to which I am most vehemently opposed as a matter of principle. And if Roy was king, and his plan was enacted by royal edict, I would be fine with it. I think I would do quite well, in fact. I would still oppose it as a matter of principle, but it would be fun to watch as the fantasy collides with reality - best laid plans and all that.

But Roy would not, and never will, be king. What Roy refuses (fails?) to see is that his particular plan will not be adopted by anyone, and would not be implemented or administered by Roy. It would not be according to Roy's special sets of rules, principles, and governing assumptions. I've seen what a lot of the others favoring or implementing LVT are doing, and it none of it quite matches what Roy is advancing. Whatever Roy thinks is the perfect formula or rule for LVT would have very little to do with anything at all, as Roy would not determine rent value assessment formulae, he would not be in charge of zoning, or determining which lands were available for public usage.

Roy really does believe that an exemption would give each individual enough good, free land to live on - that this wouldn't be tampered with by anyone, such that an exemption reduced everyone to a postage stamp of available dirt, so that everyone would end up having to pay a whopper of a difference in LVT anyway. I take Roy's word at that. Roy's word. Only. Only if Roy was king, and only for as long as Roy was alive. I would actually trust Roy with an LVT. But I wouldn't trust anyone else.

Roy really believes that the LVT, as a "single tax" solution, would somehow satisfy government (all government at all levels, no less), and that the reality of any other taxes would not creep in and take over as additional revenue streams and layers of additional taxes, and taxes on taxes, after the fact. You know, like they already did, and do now.

Roy believes in how he would implement LVT so much that he imputes his own altruism to the state. Which makes me think, "SERIOUSLY, ROY?" What did the state ever do to earn that kind of "meeza lubs and twusts gubmint!" devotion?

To know how our particular state would treat any plan (including our own Constitution, for that matter) in terms of a likelihood that the plan would be distorted, warped, abused, debased, corrupted, ignored, abridged, usurped, etc., we need only look at our present, and our own history. Roy doesn't seem to think it's an issue.

I see LVT as accomplishing only ONE thing - the abolishment of landownership. That's all. More power to the state, and an additional revenue stream to boot, for a state that has already proved its own corruption time and again, such that it cannot be trusted with the simplest of tasks.

Yep. Meeza hates dis gubmint. Meeza lubs da gubmint methinks it can and should be. Just like Roy does his own version, which I don't believe even can exist, except in Roy's mind. Of course, the reality is that both versions may be pipe dreams. But as long as I can dream, and have to relate it to the real world, I'll go with my version. Not Roy's.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Right. You have to look at the realisticness of your plan being able to be implemented. This is part of economics (a part that Roy ignores). You have to look at incentives. You have to think about individuals, put yourself in their shoes, think about "if I were politician X, how could I really make an ungodly amount of money? By being an incorruptible agent of LVT purity, administering the system without favoritism in a way that I misguidedly believe will help the people? Or maybe... not?" The Public Choice school of economics focuses on these issues. I do not think Roy has ever read their books and studied their ideas.

Luckily, he easily can, and with the greatest of ease, thanks to the generosity of libertarian institutions and this wonderful libertarian tool we have called the internet:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Buchanan/buchCv3.html

Or:

http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Consent-Foundations-Constitutional-Paperbacks/dp/0472061003

 

[Roy L]

Roy, you stink. Seriously, this is the eve of our Victory,

And you accuse ME of being unrealistic?? ROTFL!! I have said before that I consider it impossible for Ron Paul to become the Republican nominee for president. The system is simply too thoroughly corrupted by money, greed and privilege.

and you're going to come in here spouting your junk like nothing even happened?

I'm just refuting fallacious, absurd and dishonest claims.

At least congratulate us on a great showing for the cause of Liberty and for Ron Paul.

Congratulations! But I still think Ron Paul's solid second-place finishes in Iowa and NH are more of an intellectual and moral victory for liberty than a harbinger of genuine political victory.

Also, in case you didn't know, your posts are completely worthless.

Others, who unlike you are honest and willing to know facts, disagree with you.

You just spew. And then you spew. And then you spew some more.

You know that is a lie. I refute, and then refute, and then refute some more.

You are the worst emissary LVT has ever had. Any cause you even remotely support any healthy, happy person would seriously question and rethink whether they wanted to be part of, just because someone like you is associated with it.

I am aware that anger is not an attractive emotion, but IMO it is the only appropriate human response to two Holocausts a year, year after decade after century after millennium. Maybe you can watch the boot stamping on the face of humanity, forever, and think to yourself, "Just as long as I could be the one wearing the boot...." (even though it is in fact your face and the faces of your loved ones that are getting stomped). I can't do that.

You really need to get your life in order, get some happiness, focus on things in your own life that you have control over, set goals and achieve them, etc.

I've done all those things. How would your advice differ from the advice given to those who opposed slavery or Naziism with the appropriate level of passion?

This mania for LVT is really dragging you down. I'm telling you, it's not my and Steven's overwhelming evil that's making you physically ill to read our posts. You're doing that to yourself.

No. I am aware that my inability to just accept the greatest evil in the history of the world and get on with my life is a handicap. But I am not the author of that evil, and my response to it is not something I am doing to myself. Could the abolitionists, or those who opposed the Nazis, just ignore the evil they saw and get on with their lives? Not if they were anything like me, they couldn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScHhuIY4Pwo

 

[helmuth_hubener]

And you accuse ME of being unrealistic?? ROTFL!! I have said before that I consider it impossible for Ron Paul to become the Republican nominee for president. The system is simply too thoroughly corrupted by money, greed and privilege.

Uhh... who cares?

Congratulations!

Thank you. There, see, if you were sincere and believable there, you would have gained some pathos points with this.

But I still think Ron Paul's solid second-place finishes in Iowa and NH are more of an intellectual and moral victory for liberty than a harbinger of genuine political victory.

What kind of victory did you think I was talking about? Of course it was an intellectual victory. This is a long-term movement. We all understand that. Were in this for the long haul. "It’s not like I’m just trying to win and get elected. I’m trying to change the course of history." -- Ron Paul



Anyway, my advice is good. Those passionately opposing the Nazis were not all unhappy people. We don't have a moral obligation to be long-suffering and self-tortured. You can be just as passionate and be optimistic. I know I am. I am really passionate about my Rothbardianism and my opposition to the horrible people and horrible actions and horrible ideas of the State. But I'm very optimistic and very happy, because that's not all there is to my life, and also because my ideas will work and are catching on. I'm winning.

So I guess I can understand your despair. Your ideas are not catching on. You are not winning. Georgism is a dead and disappearing philosophy promoted by 15 die-hards on the Internet, all of whom are probably over 50. That would be frustrating. I feel your pain.

Maybe that's a sign, though, that you should find a different philosophy. One that could actually work! One that's vibrant and brilliant and right! That would be: the Mises-Rothbard-Rockwell-Paul wing of intelligent, no-compromise Libertarianism.

 

[Roy L]

What Roy refuses (fails?) to see is that his particular plan will not be adopted by anyone, and would not be implemented or administered by Roy.

I've never been able to understand how anyone could imagine that is an objection of any interest. It's like I'm explaining the principles of a healthy diet to you, and you're saying, "Nobody is going to follow your diet plan exactly, Roy. They are going to eat birthday cake on their birthdays, even though you think cake is not very healthy. So much for your diet plan. You just refuse to see that it is other people who are choosing the food they eat, not you." I am unable rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could prompt such comments.

It would not be according to Roy's special sets of rules, principles, and governing assumptions. I've seen what a lot of the others favoring or implementing LVT are doing, and it none of it quite matches what Roy is advancing.

So? There are lots of diets out there, too. There is lots of disagreement about details. But every competent dietician and nutritionist knows there are certain principles underlying all healthful diets.

Whatever Roy thinks is the perfect formula or rule for LVT would have very little to do with anything at all, as Roy would not determine rent value assessment formulae, he would not be in charge of zoning, or determining which lands were available for public usage.

I would not be choosing the food other people eat, either. That doesn't mean nothing I could say about diet has any validity.

Roy really does believe that an exemption would give each individual enough good, free land to live on - that this wouldn't be tampered with by anyone, such that an exemption reduced everyone to a postage stamp of available dirt, so that everyone would end up having to pay a whopper of a difference in LVT anyway. I take Roy's word at that. Roy's word. Only. Only if Roy was king, and only for as long as Roy was alive. I would actually trust Roy with an LVT. But I wouldn't trust anyone else.

I am only saying what would happen if certain reforms were enacted. I have never claimed to be predicting what WILL happen -- other than my prediction, which has always come true and always will come true, that all apologists for landowner privilege inevitably lie.

Roy really believes that the LVT, as a "single tax" solution, would somehow satisfy government (all government at all levels, no less), and that the reality of any other taxes would not creep in and take over as additional revenue streams and layers of additional taxes, and taxes on taxes, after the fact. You know, like they already did, and do now.

They already did and do now because they have to fund the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners.

Roy believes in how he would implement LVT so much that he imputes his own altruism to the state.

I am not an altruist, and unlike you I don't anthropomorphize or impute motives to the state.

Which makes me think, "SERIOUSLY, ROY?" What did the state ever do to earn that kind of "meeza lubs and twusts gubmint!" devotion?

While the state made Swaziland much like Somalia, it also made Switzerland and many other countries not like Somalia. The fact that many foods are unhealthy is not a good reason to stop eating altogether.

To know how our particular state would treat any plan (including our own Constitution, for that matter) in terms of a likelihood that the plan would be distorted, warped, abused, debased, corrupted, ignored, abridged, usurped, etc., we need only look at our present, and our own history. Roy doesn't seem to think it's an issue.

No, I just understand, as you do not, how landowner privilege is at the root of many of the problems you have with the state.

I see LVT as accomplishing only ONE thing - the abolishment of landownership. That's all. More power to the state, and an additional revenue stream to boot, for a state that has already proved its own corruption time and again, such that it cannot be trusted with the simplest of tasks.

It cannot be trusted WHEN ITS TASK IS TO SERVE LANDOWNERS.

 

[bnvalerie]

Forgive me if this has been addressed, or is too philosophical of a tangent. I haven't taken the time to read all 1528 posts of this thread. If it this idea has been addressed, please direct me to that point in the discussion, as I'd like to see others' thoughts.

In what I have read, there seem to me to be an omission that is fundamental to a free society. Doesn't the Natural Law that endows us all with the very rights at the heart of this discussion, imply a Creator granted us such rights?

If, accepting this as the basis for Natural Law, the law that endows all with their life, liberty and property, is the foundation for a free society. Anything that violates this is a violation of that most basic of all truths. If we accept this, then it seems clear to me any form of property taxation is a violation. This discussion about how much violation is acceptable in what would then be an almost free society seems irrelevant as there is no such thing, either you are free or you are not.

Yet, we must discuss it. It seems to me the basis of concern stems from this: that a truly free society then means that naturally a man is indeed with in his Rights to deny others the use of or any portion of that which is his, whether it is his property, or his labor. And this indeed means that there is the possibility that some shipwrecked penniless man would be at the utter disposal of the man who owns that on which the other is shipwrecked.(I'll omit the debate on what constitutes ownership out, as I don't believe it has bearing either way on my point)

It may be naturally within man to hoard what is his. And it seems to me that much of the discussion here assumes that man is basically evil. I disagree. I think Men are basically good.

This is the natural law that isn't addressed. The creator that made man, also created within him a natural inclination to care about fellow man. This is basic. The desire to continue the human species, man must interact with others in order to achieve this. This is also complex. As man is more than animal, and has a soul and a connection to other men. This is nature. This is essential to liberty.

There will be those men that do bad, and men are inclined to corruption, and evil. But men are also good and most will help others when perceived to be needed. This often is so strong, that people ironically become tyrannical, in their efforts to do good. This drives many people to do what they do. Most people who support socialism, support it out of the desire to do good. People want to help their fellow man. Free people want to promote freedom, thus the cycle of freedom and despotism ensues. Man cares about other men so much, that he becomes tyrannical in making everyone "free". Those wholly evil know this basic law of nature and use it to their advantage. How does any massive societal change ever occur if not under the guise of doing good?

Our grand experiment in Liberty is proof of this, as our Country seems to have the most generous people. But this is not because of some disproportionate sprinkling of generosity. Perhaps this is because when men are guaranteed the protections of their freedom, and when men are free(or believe themselves to be), they will freely help others as well, and will perpetuate freedom. When men are slaves, they will still help others, but is it not more difficult to do so? Therefore the best form which will help the most people, is it not one of freedom?

Is it the concern that people will suffer, if everyone is indeed allowed to exercise complete freedom? Is the implication of a safeguard to address the concern, one that always leads to despotism? To somehow ensure that all men do good, must we violate the rights of all men?

 

[Steven Douglas]

[The state] cannot be trusted WHEN ITS TASK IS TO SERVE LANDOWNERS.

...or the highest bidding landholders it would serve under LVT.

States are not to be trusted, period. You don't judge them on their stated intents, but only by the broadest reaches of power conceivable, which it will always seek to extend outward from its necessarily limited purposes. States are like wild, power-hungry, disobedient animals by default. You don't unleash or uncage them for any reason. Ever. They can be anthropomorphized because they are the products of men and their wants, needs and desires. They prefer self-growth and will resist shrinkage at all costs, the genie that never goes willingly back into its bottle. They are The Little Shop of Horrors, every one of them, at their core - Feed me, Seymour. They will eat you. They will enslave you. They will seek to trade places with you, seeing you put into their tiny, powerless bottle. For your safety and well being, naturally.
That's the history of most states, including ours.

 

[Steven Douglas]

It seems to me the basis of concern stems from this: that a truly free society then means that naturally a man is indeed with in his Rights to deny others the use of or any portion of that which is his, whether it is his property, or his labor.

To be clear, Geoists/Georgists/geolibertarians, like many libertarians, believe that "property rights" are fundamental. What you earn, build, produce, etc., really is yours to keep, and should be free of taxation or confiscation by anyone. They only make a distinction - and it is a sharp distinction - where land is concerned (and in many versions, what comes out of the land). They don't see land as "property" in the ownership sense of the word, nor do they recognize "property rights" of land in the ownership sense, which many, like Roy, see as responsible for most of the world's ills. There is convoluted can of reasoning worms behind that distinction, which has taken some 1500+ pages (and counting) to discuss - with a fairly wide chasm of disagreement and very little room for compromise, as they want the very concept of landownership to be abolished entirely, while keeping intact the concept of land rents (valuation assessments of rents), which they see as a debt that "exclusive landholders" owe to the community and government which ostensibly provided such value (along with nature, which everyone has an "otherwise at liberty right" to use), as a single tax source of revenue for all government.

So basically, you have a right to keep, and even hoard exclusively, the fruits of your labors, but if you are using land to the exclusion of others, without payment of some kind to those others, you are stealing from them - even to the point, in some geoists' minds, of robbing, enslaving and murdering - just by the fact of your exclusive use or withholding of lands without payment to others.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

In what I have read, there seem to me to be an omission that is fundamental to a free society. Doesn't the Natural Law that endows us all with the very rights at the heart of this discussion, imply a Creator granted us such rights?

I would say yes, though whether that Creator is an actual person or the ineffable forces of physics and the Anthropic Principle does not affect the conclusion.

If, accepting this as the basis for Natural Law, the law that endows all with their life, liberty and property, is the foundation for a free society. Anything that violates this is a violation of that most basic of all truths. If we accept this, then it seems clear to me any form of property taxation is a violation. This discussion about how much violation is acceptable in what would then be an almost free society seems irrelevant as there is no such thing, either you are free or you are not.

I would again say yes. And I take the side of total unabridged freedom. That needs to be our ideology and our goal.

Yet, we must discuss it. It seems to me the basis of concern stems from this: that a truly free society then means that naturally a man is indeed with in his Rights to deny others the use of or any portion of that which is his, whether it is his property, or his labor. And this indeed means that there is the possibility that some shipwrecked penniless man would be at the utter disposal of the man who owns that on which the other is shipwrecked.(I'll omit the debate on what constitutes ownership out, as I don't believe it has bearing either way on my point)

I don't know that we need to discuss it. The Crusoe scenario is totally at odds with my own conception of what reality is, but it does reinforce the Georgist's mental model of what they think reality is: a place where mean, nasty landowners are constantly oppressing everyone by the mere fact of their owning land.

It may be naturally within man to hoard what is his. And it seems to me that much of the discussion here assumes that man is basically evil. I disagree. I think Men are basically good.

I would agree that we're basically good in many ways. Civilization of any kind would be pretty impossible if we weren't. Even more fundamentally important to our nature than any basic goodness or basic evilness is this: that men are basically free, to choose whether to be good or evil.

There will be those men that do bad, and men are inclined to corruption, and evil. But men are also good and most will help others when perceived to be needed. This often is so strong, that people ironically become tyrannical, in their efforts to do good. This drives many people to do what they do. Most people who support socialism, support it out of the desire to do good. People want to help their fellow man. Free people want to promote freedom, thus the cycle of freedom and despotism ensues. Man cares about other men so much, that he becomes tyrannical in making everyone "free". Those wholly evil know this basic law of nature and use it to their advantage. How does any massive societal change ever occur if not under the guise of doing good?

I agree that it probably doesn't. It has to at least seem good.

Therefore the best form which will help the most people, is it not one of freedom?

Indeed.

Is it the concern that people will suffer, if everyone is indeed allowed to exercise complete freedom? Is the implication of a safeguard to address the concern, one that always leads to despotism? To somehow ensure that all men do good, must we violate the rights of all men?

I would say yes, yes, and yes.

 

[Roy L]

...or the highest bidding landholders it would serve under LVT.

No, it would NOT be serving them, it would be TRADING with them by mutual consent, as they would be repaying the full value of what they took. That is the point.

States are not to be trusted, period.

That betrays a fundamental misconception of what states are. Trust is not a concept that applies to them.

You don't judge them on their stated intents, but only by the broadest reaches of power conceivable, which it will always seek to extend outward from its necessarily limited purposes. States are like wild, power-hungry, disobedient animals by default. You don't unleash or uncage them for any reason. Ever.

"Meeza hatesa gubmint." We know. What we don't know is what might be meant by "unleashing" or "uncaging" a state.

They can be anthropomorphized because they are the products of men and their wants, needs and desires.

No, such claims are absurd. A building is also a product of men's wants, needs and desires, but it is nonsensical to anthropomorphize it.

They prefer self-growth and will resist shrinkage at all costs, the genie that never goes willingly back into its bottle. They are The Little Shop of Horrors, every one of them, at their core - Feed me, Seymour. They will eat you. They will enslave you.

No, history shows that states are the only thing stopping landowners from enslaving you.

They will seek to trade places with you, seeing you put into their tiny, powerless bottle. For your safety and well being, naturally.
That's the history of most states, including ours.

Yeah, yeah: "Meeza hatesa gubmint." We know.

 

[Roy L]

In what I have read, there seem to me to be an omission that is fundamental to a free society. Doesn't the Natural Law that endows us all with the very rights at the heart of this discussion, imply a Creator granted us such rights?

I have explained why it does not. Rights are just as real and natural and necessary whether there is any Creator or not, because societies where people have rights out-compete societies where they don't.

If, accepting this as the basis for Natural Law, the law that endows all with their life, liberty and property, is the foundation for a free society.

As already proved, there is no natural law that endows anyone, or ever has or ever could endow anyone, with property in land, because that would inherently violate others' rights to life and liberty.

Anything that violates this is a violation of that most basic of all truths. If we accept this, then it seems clear to me any form of property taxation is a violation.

Assuming that it is a tax on actual valid property (i.e., products of labor) and not on government-issued and -enforced privileges such as land titles. Right.

This discussion about how much violation is acceptable in what would then be an almost free society seems irrelevant as there is no such thing, either you are free or you are not.

True; and if land is privately owned, you are not free. Period. The landowner has removed a portion of your right to liberty. If enough land is privately owned, you are effectively enslaved, as proved by the slave-like condition of the landless in all countries where private landowning is well established, but government does not intercede on behalf of the landless through welfare, public health care and education, union monopolies, minimum wages, etc.

It seems to me the basis of concern stems from this: that a truly free society then means that naturally a man is indeed with in his Rights to deny others the use of or any portion of that which is his, whether it is his property, or his labor.

Recognizing that land cannot possibly be his property, any more than the earth's atmosphere or the sea could be.

And this indeed means that there is the possibility that some shipwrecked penniless man would be at the utter disposal of the man who owns that on which the other is shipwrecked.(I'll omit the debate on what constitutes ownership out, as I don't believe it has bearing either way on my point)

What constitutes valid ownership is absolutely fundamental.

If what the penniless man is shipwrecked on is validly owned, like a raft the other man has built, then the other man, whatever the terms he offers, is only offering a positive benefit that the shipwrecked man would not otherwise have.

By contrast, if what the penniless man is shipwrecked on is not validly owned but merely held by forcible appropriation, like land, then the other man is harming him, and violating his rights by forcibly depriving him of the means of survival that he would otherwise have been at liberty to use.

It's very simple: if the ownership is valid, taking the owner out of the picture leaves the penniless man worse off. If the ownership is invalid, taking the owner out of the picture makes the penniless man better off. The latter type of ownership can never be valid, as it inherently harms the penniless man.

It may be naturally within man to hoard what is his. And it seems to me that much of the discussion here assumes that man is basically evil. I disagree. I think Men are basically good.

True: privileges like landowning turn basically good men into evil, ravening monsters who gleefully rob, torture, starve, enslave and murder their fellows.

This is the natural law that isn't addressed.

It has been addressed. See above for a brief treatment of the issue.

Most people who support socialism, support it out of the desire to do good.

I doubt that. IME most who support socialism desire unearned wealth or power.

People want to help their fellow man. Free people want to promote freedom, thus the cycle of freedom and despotism ensues. Man cares about other men so much, that he becomes tyrannical in making everyone "free". Those wholly evil know this basic law of nature and use it to their advantage. How does any massive societal change ever occur if not under the guise of doing good?

It is true that all evil must be rationalized and justified; and institutionalized evil, evil inflicted as a matter of public policy, requires an extraordinary amount of it.

Is it the concern that people will suffer, if everyone is indeed allowed to exercise complete freedom?

If you think there can be a "freedom" to remove others' rights by such means as slavery or landowning, then yes.

To somehow ensure that all men do good, must we violate the rights of all men?

No. Rather, to stop them doing evil, we must stop them from violating the rights of other men without making just compensation.

 

[Steven Douglas]

States can be anthropomorphized because they are the products of men and their wants, needs and desires.

No, such claims are absurd. A building is also a product of men's wants, needs and desires, but it is nonsensical to anthropomorphize it.

Nice nonsensical fallacy of composition on your part, Roy. I didn't anthropomorphize a building, because that truly would be absurd (to even think of it). The state capital building is not the state. It is just a building. And I didn't claim the state could be anthropomorphized because it was created by humans, but rather because it was comprised of humans.

What do you think a state is, Roy? It is nothing but a collection of people. People who act. That's it! All the rest is stuff and fluff and bother. All human collectives, including a "state", can rightly be anthropomorphized because they are comprised of humans - the very "anthro" of anthropomorphism.

States are not to be trusted, period.

That betrays a fundamental misconception of what states are. Trust is not a concept that applies to them.

Oh yeah? When you vote for a politician to represent you in the state, you "entrust" that politician - else it wouldn't get your vote. And even though I "entrust" a politician with my vote, that does not necessarily mean that I "trust" that politician (that person who runs that part of "the state"). I am usually voting for what I consider the lesser of evils in most elections.

My conception of a state, and why trust is a concept which very much applies to all of them, is dead on the mark and fits with reality. The fact that you believe otherwise is fascinating to me, as it causes me to wonder what kind of bizarre concept you have about what states really are.

IME most who support socialism desire unearned wealth or power.

Likewise the non-Marxist but every bit as socialist geoists, who also desire unearned wealth or power by simply redefining ownership and fabricating prior claims of liberty with regard to certain kinds of wealth - flipping definitions such that a landowner becomes a thief, and a would be thief becomes a collective landowner - the landownership essence of which is negated and dismissed through philosophical sophistry and etymological sleight-of-hand, which changes the very definitions of owner and ownership, such that land becomes not owned, but "unownable", even when it is collectively something-which-shall-be-called-other-than-owned.

 

[thoughtomator]

How did this discussion get to 154 pages? Property taxes are inherently odious. What a man earns the government has no right to take away.

 

[redbluepill]

It was a little more complex than that. I think that there are a variety of factors which make a claim more or less likely to be valid, and undertaking transformation of the claimed resource is one of the biggest ones, probably the biggest. The size of the claim, the nature of the resource, the location of the resource, what kind of transformation you're doing, how far along the transformation is, and on and on, all play into its justice. It would be very difficult to establish a just claim without having done any labor whatsoever. In fact, I can't think of a case where that would be possible.

Ted Turner owns 1,910,000 acres. He must have labored REALLY hard on all that land. ;-)

 

[redbluepill]

How did this discussion get to 154 pages? Property taxes are inherently odious. What a man earns the government has no right to take away.

No one here claims the land should be owned by the government. No one here claims the government should confiscate land.

 

[Roy L]

How did this discussion get to 154 pages?

Mostly through repetition of fallacious, absurd and dishonest objections to LVT, and their refutations.

Property taxes are inherently odious.

No, that's objectively false, as proved by the fact that the US states with the highest property tax rates, like NH, NJ, TX, WI, etc. tend to have better economies, higher incomes, less welfare, unemployment and crime, better education and public services, more affordable housing, etc. than the average, while the states with the lowest property tax rates, like LA, AL, MS, CA, etc. tend to have worse economies, lower incomes, more welfare, unemployment and crime, worse education and public services, less affordable housing, etc. than the average. The catastrophic effect of lower property tax rates since Proposition 13 passed in CA in 1978 is blatantly obvious and indisputable.

What a man earns the government has no right to take away.

True. But as labor earns its product, and land is not a product of labor, it is logically impossible for any man ever to have earned land.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Ted Turner owns 1,910,000 acres. He must have labored REALLY hard on all that land. ;-)

Right, he did! Labored hard to get it, that is. Change your word "on" to "for". He had to earn a lot of wealth to be able to trade for all that land.

Now he was not the original homesteader, of course, which is what we were talking about, but hey, I'm easy! Move the goal posts all you want, I'll roll with it.