What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

Your question assumes the labor theory of value.
No, of course it doesn't. Such claims are just ignorant if not dishonest.
This isn't really that applicable to land/bodies of water. A man who "improves" a property can sell it-yet still not get what he believes it to be worth, as that is just his subjective opinion for the most part (unless he is only asking for the market price of the land and the improvements-therefore not making much, if any profit). The LToV isn't that great, IMO (especially when applied to land).
It clearly has no relation to land, which has value despite zero labor cost.
The Homesteading principle tells us that individuals can claim otherwise unclaimed land
No, it ASSUMES, without justification, that the land user's property right to fixed improvements he produces validly extinguishes others' liberty rights to use the land he didn't produce.
(or water in the case of seasteading...and air if it ever becomes practical) by making a legal claim to the land.
Mention law, and you are just question begging.
IOW, a person can technically homestead anywhere that no one else has claimed.
Garbage. That absurd "principle" just gives ownership of land to whoever first finds someone gullible enough to believe his claim of ownership, ignoring the rights of those who would otherwise be at liberty to use it or may even have BEEN using it.
The question of how much land a person can claim is simply however much he can in practicality maintain.
More garbage. Land needs no maintenance by definition.
I, for example, wouldn't claim more than enough land for a house and decent lawn space.
How magnanimous of you.
More than that becomes too much of a liability.
Landed property is an asset, not a liability, which is why those who think they can claim land generally try to claim as much as possible, up to and including whole continents.
Here's another example for you-US bases in Afghanistan. In the most technical sense, these are US property,
The improvements might be.
but it's all so expensive to maintain that it just can't last for any significant amount of time. The regime can certainly try to maintain all these overseas bases, but entropy, economics, and other natural forces seem to make it inevitable that it will end.
The land could never become property in the first place.
 
What makes you think it's not practical? Anarchist literature certainly answers many more questions of practicality than geoism does.
Nonsense. Geoism clearly provides an improved economic framework for a society with familiar and proven institutions. Anarchism does not.
If you can think of something you haven't heard anarchists come up with a stateless alternative for, just ask about it on the forums. Our local anarchists will be happy to explain it to you.
I've seen all the anarcho-nonsense I care to, thanks. If it could work, why hasn't it out-competed states?
 
If it could work, why hasn't it out-competed states?
Because States have a monopoly on violence. Once established, they don't relinquish their power. If Geoism works, why hasn't everyone accepted it? (since you believe in and fancy yourself an expert in formal logic, you should know you just committed an ad populum fallacy ;))
 
Nonsense. Geoism clearly provides an improved economic framework for a society with familiar and proven institutions. Anarchism does not.
Au Contraire. Geoists have to make up institutions out of thin air, as you've mentioned throughout this thread. Anarchists have dealt extensively with the economic framework of society and various institutions. It's far more convincing than Geoist literature.
 
Are you willing to know the fact that some things, such as products of labor, are rightly ownable, and others, such as the sun and the alphabet, are not? If not, then you do not understand the concept of property well enough to be discussing it with adults. If so, then we can discuss the question of what is rightly property and what is not after you stop spewing stupid lies about what I have plainly written.


We've already been through this about 30 pages ago. God gave Adam the title rights to the earth, and Adam passed those rights to his children, and so on and so on. So the earth is declared by God as a specific sphere of human ownership, just like other earthly temporal possessions. This is why there were laws against moving your neighbors boundary stones...ownership is implied in the commands against land theft. In regards to ownership, there is no distinction between land and other property in Scripture like you are making.


Biblically, the sun is not specified as an entity that is possible to be owned by humans, but the sun is still owned. That is why I said that you are fighting an entire universe of ownership. The Creator is the owner of every molecule of His material creation. Even alphabets and thoughts and those kinds of things are, in the final eternal sense, owned...because God is the ultimate cause of thought itself. God used the Hebrew and Greek alphabets, for example, as instruments to communicate His Word to men. Nothing, not even immaterial things like laws and thoughts, exist independent of the Creator's will. The Christian man is to "take every thought captive to the mind of Christ":

2nd Corinthians 10:5

"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."


So, as a Christian, I can take a step back and consider all the arguments for or against IP for example, and not have to make a specific declaration about it, even though I have my opinions on it. But ownership in regards to land on this earth is something that I as a Christian have to make a specific declaration about, because God has given me the specific command of earthly dominion in Scripture and there are actual voluntary title transfers.


Well, anyway.... I have to thank you Roy, because you have really made me dig deep into my worldview to provide a justification for the things I am talking about.
 
Last edited:
Because States have a monopoly on violence. Once established, they don't relinquish their power. If Geoism works, why hasn't everyone accepted it? (since you believe in and fancy yourself an expert in formal logic, you should know you just committed an ad populum fallacy ;))

I love this logic, the fact something hasn't been accepted by everybody, means it can't work.
 
Though the water running in the fountain be every one's, yet who can doubt, but that in the pitcher is his only who drew it out? His labour hath taken it out of the hands of nature, where it was common, and belonged equally to all her children, and hath thereby appropriated to himself.

-------------------------

John Locke
Second Treatise of Government
Chapter V - On Property
Section 28-32

Sec. 28. He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or
the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly
appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I
ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he eat?
or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up?
and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else
could. That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added
something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and
so they became his private right. And will any one say, he had no right to
those acorns or apples, he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent
of all mankind to make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself
what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was necessary, man
had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him. We see in
commons, which remain so by compact, that it is the taking any part of what
is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in, which
begins the property; without which the common is of no use. And the taking
of this or that part, does not depend on the express consent of all the
commoners. Thus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut;
and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in
common with others, become my property, without the assignation or consent
of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common
state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.

Sec. 29. By making an explicit consent of every commoner, necessary to any
one's appropriating to himself any part of what is given in common, children
or servants could not cut the meat, which their father or master had
provided for them in common, without assigning to every one his peculiar
part. Though the water running in the fountain be every one's, yet who can
doubt, but that in the pitcher is his only who drew it out? His labour hath
taken it out of the hands of nature, where it was common, and belonged
equally to all her children, and hath thereby appropriated it to himself.

Sec. 30. Thus this law of reason makes the deer that Indian's who hath
killed it; it is allowed to be his goods, who hath bestowed his labour upon
it, though before it was the common right of every one. And amongst those
who are counted the civilized part of mankind, who have made and multiplied
positive laws to determine property, this original law of nature, for the
beginning of property, in what was before common, still takes place; and by
virtue thereof, what fish any one catches in the ocean, that great and still
remaining common of mankind; or what ambergrise any one takes up here, is by
the labour that removes it out of that common state nature left it in, made
his property, who takes that pains about it. And even amongst us, the hare
that any one is hunting, is thought his who pursues her during the chase:
for being a beast that is still looked upon as common, and no man's private
possession; whoever has employed so much labour about any of that kind, as
to find and pursue her, has thereby removed her from the state of nature,
wherein she was common, and hath begun a property.

Sec. 31. It will perhaps be objected to this, that if gathering the acorns,
or other fruits of the earth, &c. makes a right to them, then any one may
ingross as much as he will. To which I answer, Not so. The same law of
nature, that does by this means give us property, does also bound that
property too. God has given us all things richly, 1 Tim. vi. 12. is the
voice of reason confirmed by inspiration. But how far has he given it us? To
enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it
spoils, so much he may by his Labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond
this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God
for man to spoil or destroy. And thus, considering the plenty of natural
provisions there was a long time in the world, and the few spenders; and to
how small a part of that provision the industry of one man could extend
itself, and ingross it to the prejudice of others; especially keeping within
the bounds, set by reason, of what might serve for his use; there could be
then little room for quarrels or contentions about property so established.

Sec. 32. But the chief matter of property being now not the fruits of the
earth, and the beasts that subsist on it, but the earth itself; as that
which takes in and carries with it all the rest; I think it is plain, that
property in that too is acquired as the former. As much land as a man tills,
plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his
property.
He by his labour does, as it were, inclose it from the common. Nor
will it invalidate his right, to say every body else has an equal title to
it; and therefore he cannot appropriate, he cannot inclose, without the
consent of all his fellow-commoners, all mankind. God, when he gave the
world in common to all mankind, commanded man also to labour, and the penury
of his condition required it of him. God and his reason commanded him to
subdue the earth, i.e. improve it for the benefit of life, and therein lay
out something upon it that was his own, his labour. He that in obedience to
this command of God, subdued, tilled and sowed any part of it, thereby
annexed to it something that was his property, which another had no title
to, nor could without injury take from him.


say ye?

presence
 
Last edited:
OK, so are we also agreed that government stepping in, including with force, to secure exclusive tenure to the private party that is paying the land rent does not constitute "government confiscation of land," even if one or more of those thus excluded claims to "own" the land?

We're in agreement. I am considering the case where no one else is paying for the privilege.
 
There will still be contracts and communities in a stateless society. I dont get your point.

My point was that in that stateless society, all land is taken up by "corporations", communities, etc so no matter where you live you have to belong to one of them. It's essentially the same as citizenship of a state we have now, as all land is taken up by a community.
 
Your question assumes the labor theory of value. This isn't really that applicable to land/bodies of water. A man who "improves" a property can sell it-yet still not get what he believes it to be worth, as that is just his subjective opinion for the most part (unless he is only asking for the market price of the land and the improvements-therefore not making much, if any profit). The LToV isn't that great, IMO (especially when applied to land).

Let’s be clear, I do not support the labor theory of value. Henry George did not either:

"It is never the amount of labor that has been exerted in bringing a thing into being that determines its value, but always the amount of labor that will be rendered in exchange for it." -- The Science of Political Economy, p. 253


I do not make the argument that any amount of labor can make land property.


The Homesteading principle tells us that individuals can claim otherwise unclaimed land (or water in the case of seasteading...and air if it ever becomes practical) by making a legal claim to the land. IOW, a person can technically homestead anywhere that no one else has claimed. The question of how much land a person can claim is simply however much he can in practicality maintain. I, for example, wouldn't claim more than enough land for a house and decent lawn space. More than that becomes too much of a liability. Here's another example for you-US bases in Afghanistan. In the most technical sense, these are US property, but it's all so expensive to maintain that it just can't last for any significant amount of time. The regime can certainly try to maintain all these overseas bases, but entropy, economics, and other natural forces seem to make it inevitable that it will end.

If it just isn’t ‘practical’ to ‘own’ large chunks of land then tell me why does Ted Turner own close to 2 million acres of land? You assume these landlords actually USE all the land the own. They don't.
 
My point was that in that stateless society, all land is taken up by "corporations", communities, etc so no matter where you live you have to belong to one of them. It's essentially the same as citizenship of a state we have now, as all land is taken up by a community.

Never said that the geoist system would be universal if we had anarchism.
 
But then how do you compensate everyone whose liberty you're violating?
Compensate for what? If there is no community, how much more advantageous can your location be than the next one? "Everyone" meaning whom? If there is no community, whose liberty are you violating?

If you are talking about a case of extreme scarcity between competing prospective users like Dirtowner Harry and Thirsty or Crusoe and Friday, then yes, you do owe compensation; but there is no market per se to value the land, so there can't be any LVT. The compensation would just be set by the two of you bidding to compensate each other for whatever exclusive tenure privileges each of you wants.
 
Though the water running in the fountain be every one's, yet who can doubt, but that in the pitcher is his only who drew it out? His labour hath taken it out of the hands of nature, where it was common, and belonged equally to all her children, and hath thereby appropriated to himself.

-------------------------

John Locke
Second Treatise of Government
Chapter V - On Property
Section 28-32

say ye?

presence
I believe it was 10 pages ago or so that Roy declared Locke to An Evil Not To Be Trusted. But, I hope he answers your question for you anyway. :)
 
Because States have a monopoly on violence. Once established, they don't relinquish their power.
Bingo. Anarchism can't compete with states in the power arena. We HAD anarchism, for millions of years. It lost to states because the latter are far more effective at wielding power.
If Geoism works, why hasn't everyone accepted it?
It only works in the arenas of liberty, justice and prosperity. Those arenas are different from the arena of popular acceptance, as the popular acceptance of slavery proved.
(since you believe in and fancy yourself an expert in formal logic, you should know you just committed an ad populum fallacy ;))
No, I didn't. Popularity is a different issue.
 
Au Contraire. Geoists have to make up institutions out of thin air, as you've mentioned throughout this thread.
Which institutions would those be? There is already a property tax in most places. Nothing stops it from being levied only on land value (as is already done in a few places, with great success), and at a higher rate. That's LVT. It is the institution of private property in land that had to be made up out of thin air.
Anarchists have dealt extensively with the economic framework of society and various institutions.
Extensively, but not convincingly.
It's far more convincing than Geoist literature.
That is only your opinion, and it is not supported by fact. Many great economists and other notable thinkers have been fully convinced by geoist analysis, including the founders of economics, the French physiocrats Quesnay and Turgot (Adam Smith owed most of his understanding of markets, division of labor, investment, and laissez faire to Turgot's writings). Anarcho-nonsense hasn't convinced anyone but a few ninnies like Murray Rothbard.
 
My point was that in that stateless society, all land is taken up by "corporations", communities, etc so no matter where you live you have to belong to one of them. It's essentially the same as citizenship of a state we have now, as all land is taken up by a community.
Why do you think all land would be taken up? It's true that states tend to be acquisitive of land, and eagerly claim authority over land they have no use for, but that's no different with corporations and individuals. You have the same problem no matter how you arrange society: exclusive tenure to land violates people's rights to liberty. You are complaining because you think (probably correctly) that geoist communities or states would forcibly remove your liberty to use the land in between their centers of population, but you claim the exact same power to remove others' rights to use that same land, which you want to claim as somehow being your "property." Can't you see the blatant hypocrisy of your "argument"?
 
We're in agreement. I am considering the case where no one else is paying for the privilege.
Then we agree on that, too: there is no reason for government to take any action wrt land no one is paying rent for -- other than, perhaps, to invite people to consider whether they might not want secure exclusive tenure on it.
 
Why do you think all land would be taken up? It's true that states tend to be acquisitive of land, and eagerly claim authority over land they have no use for, but that's no different with corporations and individuals. You have the same problem no matter how you arrange society: exclusive tenure to land violates people's rights to liberty. You are complaining because you think (probably correctly) that geoist communities or states would forcibly remove your liberty to use the land in between their centers of population, but you claim the exact same power to remove others' rights to use that same land, which you want to claim as somehow being your "property." Can't you see the blatant hypocrisy of your "argument"?

Its not hypocritical because I don't believe that owning land deprives anyone of any liberty. I think it's hypocritical that you advocate simply transferring the land title from individuals to government who can then use force to extort money from those who use the land. I think your position is hypocritical, you don't like individual land owners, but when the government or some geoist community owns it it's fine.

To sum it up:
LVT = idiotic
Geoism = idiotic
 
Back
Top