Property Taxes are Communism
What better way to welcome someone to the area than with a huge property tax bill? I just bought some property in Keene, and what's the first thing I get in the mail? A nearly $3,000 bill for property taxes! This amount will only cover six months! Keene's property taxes are so high, it's like paying rent again. One of the main reasons I became a homeowner was to get away from throwing money down the rent rathole, now I'm just throwing it down the property tax rathole to the tune of $500 per month.
"What?!" you say, "You have to have property taxes! What about our government services? What about the schools?". To that I say, wait. Back up. Reset.
Did you realize that property taxes are communism in America? A hallmark of communism is central control and distribution of resources. Anyone who has paid even a little attention to history knows that communism is always a failure, because centralization is inefficient, slow, stupid, and dangerous. Why do we put up with this in the USA let alone the great state of New Hampshire? Just in case you're confused, here's how property taxes work:
Some "authority", in this case the "Department of Assessment", assigns a value to your property. The "Revenue Collector" then applies a tax rate of X mils to your property and sends you a bill. Providing you do not want a band of armed thugs (the police) coming to throw you off the property that YOU paid for, you pay the outrageously expensive bill. So does everyone else. All these payments are sent to the Revenue Collector (the central controller) who then sends portions of your money off to other centrally controlled bureaucracies like the School Board and Police Department.
"Are you saying you don't want school and police?!"
No, not at all. I'm saying I don't like communist forced wealth redistribution schemes. It's totally possible to have both schools and police without property taxes. And no, I'm not proposing another tax to replace it. My proposal will give us better schools and police, here's how:
Most people would agree that schools and police are important things to have around. However, has anyone ever asked themselves why these bureaucracies cannot be funded on a voluntary basis? If they are truly providing a valuable service, surely people will step up to the plate and buy their services just like we buy services from Panera Bread or Walmart on a voluntary basis.
"How will voluntary funding make police and schools better?"
Simple, because if they aren't doing their jobs, they won't get the funding. With today's property tax scam, it doesn't matter how bad or inefficient the police, schools, and other government services are, they keep getting bigger budgets year after year. There's no accountability and not much that we can do about it. If we were to set a date, say Jan 1st 2007 and tell these bureaucracies that they will no longer get tax funding after that date, they'd either figure out how to voluntarily fund themselves, or they would die from uselessness. Inefficent bureaucracies would have to turn into efficient businesses to survive. None of the rest of us in business get a guaranteed fat funding check every 6 months, neither should the government.
"Great idea! How do we get there from here?"
That's the tricky part. I see two paths:
1. Electing principled, pro-Liberty candidates to local office. These individuals could make the changes necessary to set a date for conversion to voluntary funding, and everything would be "official". We'd all get one last property tax bill, and the bureaucrats would get a deadline to become 100% voluntarily funded.
2. Civil disobedience. Did you ever ask yourself, what would they do if 10% of residents refused to pay? What about 25%? Would they build a big jail and throw us all in and take all our property? This shows how absurd property taxes are. If you were to put those people in jail, you'd be destroying the economy of the area from two directions. The economy would take a hit because all those productive individuals would be in jail sitting around. It would take another hit, because they'd have to raise the remaining population's taxes to pay for the 10 or 25% sitting in jail!
If we can shift our bureaucracies to voluntary funding models and eliminate the oppressive property tax, New Hampshire will become the wealthiest place in the world. Imagine what you could do if you didn't have to pay those thousands of dollars a year to the government. Imagine being able to control every dollar you earn, and spend it, save it, and give it away in the ways that YOU think are best! This change is possible, and it's being discussed at http://forum.nhfree.com . I hope you give it the utmost serious consideration.
Ian Bernard
Host, "Free Talk Live"
http://freetalklive.com
It'll go in the 6/25 edition, but I can put it up on the website now.
QuoteSome "authority", in this case the "Department of Assessment", assigns a value to your property. The "Revenue Collector" then applies a tax rate of X mils to your property and sends you a bill. Providing you do not want a band of armed thugs (the police) coming to throw you off the property that YOU paid for, you pay the outrageously expensive bill. So does everyone else. All these payments are sent to the Revenue Collector (the central controller) who then sends portions of your money off to other centrally controlled bureaucracies like the School Board and Police Department.
...I'm saying I don't like communist forced wealth redistribution schemes.
a market value is assigned from objective data points (sales of other properties) via a private company.
the assessment is for two seperate and distinct values:
1. building value (created via human labor)
2. land value (not created via the landowner's labor)
the definition of wealth includes the expenditure of labor.
the tax you pay for your building values is theft of wealth
the tax you pay for your land values prevents a theft of your neighbors wealth if rather than collected and spent by the government it is instead collected and returned directly and equally to those that created it - your neighbors.
:laughing4:
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 06, 2006, 05:15 PM NHFT
:laughing4:
thanks for getting me over the 100 smite barrier...
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 06, 2006, 05:16 PM NHFT
thanks for getting me over the 100 smite barrier...
i didn't smite you
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 06, 2006, 05:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 06, 2006, 05:16 PM NHFT
thanks for getting me over the 100 smite barrier...
i didn't smite you
i'll prove it, you're back to 99 cus i applauded you
"Providing you do not want a band of armed thugs (the police) coming to throw you off the property that YOU paid for, you pay the outrageously expensive bill. So does everyone else."
Ya know .... that is not completely true. :)
Well, you'd be thrown "off" the trailer park's property, and thrown "out" of your own. ;)
Quote from: FTL_Ian on June 06, 2006, 09:09 PM NHFT
Well, you'd be thrown "off" the trailer park's property, and thrown "out" of your own. ;)
because they live in a mobile home village and therefore probably don't own the land but lease it from the landowner they don't pay the land value portion of the property tax (although they probably do via their lease payment)...
paying a tax on their mobile homes depreciating value is definitely theft and I would advise them to take a principled stand and not pay it but rather donate the money to the Liberty Scholarship Fund.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 06, 2006, 05:10 PM NHFT
2. land value (not created via the landowner's labor)
the definition of wealth includes the expenditure of labor.
I sure as heck paid for the land I "own". Maybe if your talking about the folks that stole it from the Indians your view would be correct.
And your definition of wealth is old school... price is determined by value if traded to others, not how much labor was put into it. Carve an object with a pen knife and it takes you 5 years... it's not necessarily worth 5 years labor unless someone else thinks it is.
Good article Ian. Karma for you.
Tracy
Quote from: katdillon on June 06, 2006, 05:06 PM NHFT
It'll go in the 6/25 edition, but I can put it up on the website now.
Super! Thanks!
Quote from: russellkanning on June 06, 2006, 08:29 PM NHFT
"Providing you do not want a band of armed thugs (the police) coming to throw you off the property that YOU paid for, you pay the outrageously expensive bill. So does everyone else."
Ya know .... that is not completely true. :)
Ian said several things in that article that I'm certain he doesn't feel are true. But it's okay... he omits his true feelings about schools, police and fire departments, while offering a gentle backdoor approach by bringing up voluntary support.
I think he did a great job.
Applause for Ian!
Kevin
Quote from: Roger Grant on June 06, 2006, 10:02 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 06, 2006, 05:10 PM NHFT
2. land value (not created via the landowner's labor)
the definition of wealth includes the expenditure of labor.
I sure as heck paid for the land I "own". Maybe if your talking about the folks that stole it from the Indians your view would be correct.
And your definition of wealth is old school... price is determined by value if traded to others, not how much labor was put into it. Carve an object with a pen knife and it takes you 5 years... it's not necessarily worth 5 years labor unless someone else thinks it is.
if we were sharing economic rent equally and directly between neighbors in a community there would be no "sales price" to occupy a particular location.
you are confusing wealth with value via price...
in order for wealth to be created there has to be labor inputs...in the case of economic rent the labor inputs are from your neighbors not from the owner.
thus, the landowner is capturing the labor of those he excludes via a tax to be paid by one of them at the time of a sale or a tenant monthly.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 07, 2006, 07:52 AM NHFT
if we were sharing economic rent equally and directly between neighbors in a community there would be no "sales price" to occupy a particular location.
you are confusing wealth with value via price...
in order for wealth to be created there has to be labor inputs...in the case of economic rent the labor inputs are from your neighbors not from the owner.
thus, the landowner is capturing the labor of those he excludes via a tax to be paid by one of them at the time of a sale or a tenant monthly.
Economic rent is slavery plain and simple.
Lets say I purchased a plot of land and started to grow my own food on it becoming totally self sufficient. I no longer need to hold a job so I quit my job and enjoy my land. FrankChodorovs group of thugs come marching over to me demanding that I go back to work so that I can pay the property taxes. If I do not get a job to pay the tax I lose my land. So I have to work in order to live because I cannot live without land. Slavery.
QuoteLets say I purchased a plot of land and started to grow my own food on it becoming totally self sufficient.
there would be no purchase price to land...just sharing economic rent directly and equally between neighbors
QuoteFrankChodorovs group of thugs come marching over to me demanding that I go back to work so that I can pay the property taxes
that presupposes that economic rent attaches to the location you are occupying - does it?
QuoteIf I do not get a job to pay the tax I lose my land
maybe the economic rent your neighbors are sharing with you is more than you are sharing with them - is that the case?
QuoteSo I have to work in order to live because I cannot live without land. Slavery
I think that describes our current system of land tenure pretty well...except I would say inorder to exist you have to occupy land and if all land is legally owned there is no place you can stand without having to pay someone (or be gifted the right) and thus nowhere to actually excercise your right of self-ownership.
in the system I advocate no matter where anyone else chooses to locate your right of self-ownership is preserved because you're are not being subjected to a tax on your wages in the form of economic rent.
wrap your head around this one Lex:
the economic rent being shared by you with your neighbors does not violate your right of self-ownership to your labor products because you contribute no labor towards producing the economic rent - it is the virtual fact that inorder to exist we must occupy space and the scarcity of unoccupied but legally owned locations plus the labor of our neighbors that creates the unimproved land values (economic rent)...
kinda like a koan, huh?
if the excluded pay the excluders out of their wages it violates their right of self-ownership because inorder to exist you must occupy some space somewhere.
if the excluders pay the excluded out of their wages it
DOES NOT violate their right of self-ownership because their labor does not create the economic rent - their neighbors' labor and mere presence does.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 07, 2006, 01:03 PM NHFT
that presupposes that economic rent attaches to the location you are occupying - does it?
Lets say I have a really nice, roomy, piece of property with a view, thus the economic rent attaches to my property. Am I going to be, to the day I die, keeping my neighbors on welfare because they have smaller lots?
I'm starting to wonder something, Bill ...
Your concept of "economic rent" only applies in a system where there is a standardized currency.
Wouldn't it break down entirely if we went back to the barter system?
Caleb
Quote from: Dietrich Bonhoeffer on June 07, 2006, 01:27 PM NHFT
I'm starting to wonder something, Bill ...
Your concept of "economic rent" only applies in a system where there is a standardized currency.
Wouldn't it break down entirely if we went back to the barter system?
does the lack of a standardized currency somehow negate the fact that economic rent (a cost/price for access) naturally attaches to all locations under conditions of scarcity?
no...I don't think so.
what would it be in a barter economy - a pound of flesh or your first born child?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 07, 2006, 01:10 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 07, 2006, 01:03 PM NHFT
that presupposes that economic rent attaches to the location you are occupying - does it?
Lets say I have a really nice, roomy, piece of property with a view, thus the economic rent attaches to my property. Am I going to be, to the day I die, keeping my neighbors on welfare because they have smaller lots?
has nothing to do with the size of someone's lot or welfare and everything to do with the right of self-ownership (simple justice via equal liberty).
now how about that koan?
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 07, 2006, 01:35 PM NHFT
has nothing to do with the size of someone's lot or welfare and everything to do with the right of self-ownership (simple justice via equal liberty).
I was asking a specific question and since you are the expert I would like your expert opinion on this subject so that I can have a correct understand of your theory/philosophy:
Lets say I have a really nice, roomy, piece of property with a view, thus the economic rent attaches to my property. Am I going to be, to the day I die, keeping my neighbors on welfare because they have smaller lots?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 07, 2006, 01:37 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 07, 2006, 01:35 PM NHFT
has nothing to do with the size of someone's lot or welfare and everything to do with the right of self-ownership (simple justice via equal liberty).
I was asking a specific question and since you are the expert I would like your expert opinion on this subject so that I can have a correct understand of your theory/philosophy:
Lets say I have a really nice, roomy, piece of property with a view, thus the economic rent attaches to my property. Am I going to be, to the day I die, keeping my neighbors on welfare because they have smaller lots?
no, you are finally going to take delight in knowing (rather than as a libertarian falsely believing otherwise) that by sharing the economic rent with your neighbors (and they with you) rather than taxing it from their wages via force and violating their right of self-onwership - you are instead upholding their right of self-ownership by strengthening property rights to labor as they are upholding yours.
so before you die you will actually be able to rest easy knowing you are contributing towards a just society based on equal liberty for all here in NH.
now, how about that koan?
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 07, 2006, 01:45 PM NHFT
no, you are finally going to take delight in knowing (rather than as a libertarian falsely believing otherwise) that by sharing the economic rent with your neighbors (and they with you) rather than taxing it from their wages via force and violating their right of self-onwership - you are instead upholding their right of self-ownership by strengthening property rights to labor as they are upholding yours.
You have muddled your answer beyond comprehension.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 07, 2006, 01:45 PM NHFT
so before you die you will actually be able to rest easy knowing you are contributing towards a just society based on equal liberty for all here in NH.
I will rest easy? Sounds like I'll be breaking my back working to pay this economic rent of yours.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 07, 2006, 01:45 PM NHFT
now, how about that koan?
What's a koan?
And lets try this yet again:
Lets say I have a really nice, roomy, piece of property with a view, nicer than what my neighbors have, thus the economic rent attaches to my property. Am I going to be, to the day I die, "sharing" economic rent with my neighbors because they have less appealing lots than mine?
A) Yes, you will be paying your neighbors to compensate them for what you have and they do not. Thus you will have to labor until you die to "share" your economic rent with them.
B) No, you will not have to compensate your neighbors for having a nicer property then they.
Please pick A or B.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has a tough time understanding Mr. Chodorov. He's unintelligible!
Uh oh, was that an insult?
Quote from: FTL_Ian on June 07, 2006, 02:22 PM NHFT
Uh oh, was that an insult?
Now you've gone done it! You had to go and insult Mr. Chodorov who of all people just wants us to share...
QuotePlease pick A or B
A) Yes, you will be
paying sharing the economic rent with your neighbors to
compensate them for what you have and they do not uphold their right of self-ownership. Thus you will
have to labor until you die delight in knowing that to "share" your economic rent with them
(and they with you) strengthens both of your property rights to your labor products (wages)...
the economic rent that you share is NOT the result of your labor because if you collected it from them it was created via their mere presence on earth and their labor products to improve their own property creating a positive externality for you.QuoteWhat's a koan?
ko?an (k?'?n') pronunciation
n.
A puzzling, often paradoxical statement or story, used in Zen Buddhism as an aid to meditation and a means of gaining spiritual awakening.
---------------
in the case I am making the "koan" is...
the economic rent you share with your neighbor is not violating your right of self-ownership because you do not labor to create it - by definition the economic rent is unimproved land value.
the economic rent paid to you monthly by a tenant or at the time of a sale by a buyer of your land does violate their right of self-ownership because they do labor to produce it.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 07, 2006, 02:44 PM NHFT
A) Yes, you will be paying sharing the economic rent with your neighbors to compensate them for what you have and they do not uphold their right of self-ownership. Thus you will have to labor until you die delight in knowing that to "share" your economic rent with them (and they with you) strengthens both of your property rights to your labor products (wages)...the economic rent that you share is NOT the result of your labor because if you collected it from them it was created via their mere presence on earth and their labor products to improve their own property creating a positive externality for you.
This system of yours seems to be based on feel good economics. e.g. How can I share economic rent if I do not hold a job and thus have something (other than land) to share?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 07, 2006, 02:57 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 07, 2006, 02:44 PM NHFT
A) Yes, you will be paying sharing the economic rent with your neighbors to compensate them for what you have and they do not uphold their right of self-ownership. Thus you will have to labor until you die delight in knowing that to "share" your economic rent with them (and they with you) strengthens both of your property rights to your labor products (wages)...the economic rent that you share is NOT the result of your labor because if you collected it from them it was created via their mere presence on earth and their labor products to improve their own property creating a positive externality for you.
This system of yours seems to be based on feel good economics. e.g. How can I share economic rent if I do not hold a job and thus have something (other than land) to share?
I dunno - how can you stand anywhere in NH inorder to excercise your supposed right of self-ownership that doesn't need to be purchased or gifted (we are born with rights) if all locations are legally occupied?
even if you aren't sharing the economic rent it is still attaching to your location and then you are entitled to capitalize on it at the time of sale...
that's the paradox...
why not allow your unimproved land value be liened and the non-redeemable liens become the basis of a local currency distributed to all neighbors within a community?
or
all the economic rent is payable to your neighbors at title transfer?
Guys, don't even waist your time.
Bill and myself and Steve and Varrin and MR Volenterist, and numerous others went round and roud with this Bill charactor, and in the end he never came up with anything fancy.
This is a religion to him.
Tracy
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 07, 2006, 03:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 07, 2006, 02:57 PM NHFT
This system of yours seems to be based on feel good economics. e.g. How can I share economic rent if I do not hold a job and thus have something (other than land) to share?
I dunno - [... incomprehensible gobbledy gook ...]
Finally we're getting somewhere.
Hey Bill .... I just realized .... you have never written any articles for the Keene Free Press. Why don't you send me one?
:laughing4:
Quotehe never came up with anything fancy
no, just good old fashion classical liberalism...that's all.
QuoteThis is a religion to him
interesting comment coming from a self-described christian anarchist.
I am describing nothing more than what Leo Tolstoy advocated.
Christianity isn't a religion. It's not based on blind faith.
It's a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
I don't worship Tolstoy and George like you do. Arguments from authority are illogical.
Of course, you were told that numerous times 3 or more years ago, and yet you still spout of as if they mean something.
At least come up with some new arguments instead of the same drivle over and over again.
Tracy
Quote from: tracysaboe on June 07, 2006, 08:22 PM NHFT
It's a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
But Jesus Christ doesn't exist...
I talked with Jesus the other day, he said while he likes Tracy he some times wishes he would just be quite so he could watch his Firefly dvd's.
Quote from: russellkanning on June 07, 2006, 05:33 PM NHFT
Hey Bill .... I just realized .... you have never written any articles for the Keene Free Press. Why don't you send me one?
Russell, I'm no editor, but I think you want your articles to be readable! I'm not a totally dull knife, and I can't comprehend any of his posts!
Quote from: FTL_Ian on June 07, 2006, 09:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on June 07, 2006, 05:33 PM NHFT
Hey Bill .... I just realized .... you have never written any articles for the Keene Free Press. Why don't you send me one?
Russell, I'm no editor, but I think you want your articles to be readable! I'm not a totally dull knife, and I can't comprehend any of his posts!
I think Russell is just hoping that if FrankChodorov sits down and takes the time to write something up it would be a bit more readable and comprehensible.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on June 07, 2006, 09:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on June 07, 2006, 05:33 PM NHFT
Hey Bill .... I just realized .... you have never written any articles for the Keene Free Press. Why don't you send me one?
Russell, I'm no editor, but I think you want your articles to be readable! I'm not a totally dull knife, and I can't comprehend any of his posts!
typically people who don't comprehend what someone has written (for whatever reason) ask clarifiying questions...
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 07, 2006, 09:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on June 07, 2006, 09:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on June 07, 2006, 05:33 PM NHFT
Hey Bill .... I just realized .... you have never written any articles for the Keene Free Press. Why don't you send me one?
Russell, I'm no editor, but I think you want your articles to be readable! I'm not a totally dull knife, and I can't comprehend any of his posts!
I think Russell is just hoping that if FrankChodorov sits down and takes the time to write something up it would be a bit more readable and comprehensible.
how about that koan Lex?
have you meditated on it yet?
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 07, 2006, 10:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 07, 2006, 09:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on June 07, 2006, 09:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on June 07, 2006, 05:33 PM NHFT
Hey Bill .... I just realized .... you have never written any articles for the Keene Free Press. Why don't you send me one?
Russell, I'm no editor, but I think you want your articles to be readable! I'm not a totally dull knife, and I can't comprehend any of his posts!
I think Russell is just hoping that if FrankChodorov sits down and takes the time to write something up it would be a bit more readable and comprehensible.
how about that koan Lex?
have you meditated on it yet?
*Sigh* Do you honestly think you can convince me that property taxes are a good thing?
Heck, I'd rather have income tax than property tax. At least with income tax if you stop working you don't have to pay anyone anything. With property taxes you have to pay them whether you have a job or not.
Property taxes and self-sufficiency do not go together.
QuoteDo you honestly think you can convince me that property taxes are a good thing?
all I am trying to point out to you is a way of living that will create the greatest amount of equal freedom for the greatest number of people with use of simple logic and reason.
QuoteWith property taxes you have to pay them whether you have a job or not.
I just gave you two scenarios where you would not have to pay...
1. at title transfer
2. with a lien system
QuoteProperty taxes and self-sufficiency do not go together.
your obviously under the false impression that if my system were implemented there wouldn't be any homesteadable land with no economic rent attached to it...because it demands that people use their location much more intensively (particularly in the urban core) there would be land abandoned on the margins that could easily be homesteaded...
Quote from: lawofattraction on June 07, 2006, 11:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 07, 2006, 11:03 PM NHFTyour obviously under the false impression that if my system were implemented there wouldn't be any homesteadable land with no economic rent attached to it...because it demands that people use their location much more intensively (particularly in the urban core) there would be land abandoned on the margins that could easily be homesteaded...
Are you saying that, under your system, if one can find a piece of land that nobody else wants he won't have to pay any property taxes on it?
Yeah, he will also probably add that somebody will pay you for taking the land... because it's not as nice as what somebody else has thus they will compensate you for your troubles. ::)
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 07, 2006, 11:03 PM NHFT
QuoteDo you honestly think you can convince me that property taxes are a good thing?
all I am trying to point out to you is a way of living that will create the greatest amount of equal freedom for the greatest number of people with use of simple logic and reason.
It is not my business to impose freedom on other people. Your system requires everyone to want freedom and want to work in a certain kind of land system.
So philosophically we do not agree on the same things.
I am a Capitalist and you are an Anti-Capitalist. Couldn't get any more opposite than that.
Quote from: lawofattraction on June 07, 2006, 11:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 07, 2006, 11:03 PM NHFTyour obviously under the false impression that if my system were implemented there wouldn't be any homesteadable land with no economic rent attached to it...because it demands that people use their location much more intensively (particularly in the urban core) there would be land abandoned on the margins that could easily be homesteaded...
Are you saying that, under your system, if one can find a piece of land that nobody else wants he won't have to pay any property taxes on it?
in my system there would be no purchase price to land only the sharing of the unimproved land value (economic rent) between neighbors.
that means alot of marginal lands that have a small selling value today will be abandoned and free for anyone to homestead until sometime in the future when it re-acquires an economic rental value.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 07, 2006, 11:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 07, 2006, 11:03 PM NHFT
QuoteDo you honestly think you can convince me that property taxes are a good thing?
all I am trying to point out to you is a way of living that will create the greatest amount of equal freedom for the greatest number of people with use of simple logic and reason.
It is not my business to impose freedom on other people. Your system requires everyone to want freedom and want to work in a certain kind of land system.
So philosophically we do not agree on the same things.
in the land system I propose
EVERYONE'S right of self-ownership is protected
without an unjust use of force no matter where
ANYONE decides to locate.
in the land system you advocate
only those with land have the right to self-ownership all the landless are
shit-outta-luck while being
FORCED to pay economic rent (a tax) to the landowners...
QuoteI am a Capitalist and you are an Anti-Capitalist. Couldn't get any more opposite than that.
you are a capitalist unjustly using force to continue government granted privilege...
I am an anti-capitalist who believes in the free market by removing all government granted privilege...
QuoteCan you explain, in simple terms, the mechanics of how this would work?
sure...
QuoteLet's say I've just graduated from college and decide to buy a small house on 1/4 acre in the suburbs. So I would buy the house from the previous owner, but would not have title to the land it sits on?
you would buy the house (capital created via labor) and hold title to the land because you would have exclusive use but you wouldn't have exclusive right to the unimproved land values which attaches to and accumulates on the location (socially created economic rent )...that would remain owned in common as an individual right of each members of the community as they are the ones that created it via their labor on their own property (capital) and by their mere presence in the world raises demand for a limited resource (land/locations).
QuoteSort of like a trailer park arrangement in that I would pay rent to the town (or the state?) for using the land?
I prefer a land trust analogy but trailer park works except rather than paying the "trailer park owner" (or the town/state) you would be paying all of your neighbors and they would be paying you for exclusive use of what we all would have equal access to if we were living in a "perfect state of nature" - complete unfettered individual freedom only bracketed by the equal liberty rights of everyone else.
if the town spends a dime of the economic rent then they have conflated an individual right owned in common for a collective right and I don't recognize any group rights as I am not a collectivist anarchist - I am an individualist anarchist.
QuoteWould the town (or state) then redistribute my rent payments to everyone else living in the area so that the "economic rent" would be shared?
yes the sole role of the state is to enforce your exclusive use of the location but facilitate that no one's right of self-ownership is infringed upon by the direct and equal sharing of economic rent...in other words no one is economically harmed no matter where anyone else chooses to locate.
the closest possible system we can reasonably devise to us all living in a "perfect state of nature" - complete unfettered individual freedom only bracketed by the equal liberty rights of everyone else.
QuoteI still don't get exactly how the economic rent is collected and redistributed. Specifics, please, not theory...Do I make a monthly payment to the government for the use of the land or a one-time payment?
in NH you pay every 6 months.
you electronic transfer money to a third party and they electronic transfer it to all community member accounts...
QuoteWhat happens if my suburb is near a booming city and the value of my 1/4 acre increases over time?
you share more of it with your neighbors...
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 08, 2006, 11:47 AM NHFT
QuoteI still don't get exactly how the economic rent is collected and redistributed. Specifics, please, not theory...Do I make a monthly payment to the government for the use of the land or a one-time payment?
in NH you pay every 6 months.
you electronic transfer money to a third party and they electronic transfer it to all community member accounts...
After collecting an administrative fee of course, say 30% >:D
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 08, 2006, 11:47 AM NHFT
QuoteWhat happens if my suburb is near a booming city and the value of my 1/4 acre increases over time?
you share more of it with your neighbors...
Sharing is nice when it's voluntary, when it's not voluntary it's NOT CALLED FREAKING SHARING!!! That's called stealing. But I doubt you'd ever see the connection.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 08, 2006, 11:59 AM NHFT
Sharing is nice when it's voluntary, when it's not voluntary it's NOT CALLED FREAKING SHARING!!!
Just wanted everyone to read this again.
QuoteAfter collecting an administrative fee of course, say 30%
how much can it cost?
money comes into one account and someone presses a button and it gets electronically transfered to all the other accounts...
I would gladly volunteer to come in every 6 months and press the button.
QuoteSharing is nice when it's voluntary, when it's not voluntary it's NOT CALLED FREAKING SHARING!!! That's called stealing. But I doubt you'd ever see the connection.
saying that paying your landowner for access to a location is voluntary because you can choose which landowner to pay is nice but it is NOT FREAKING VOLUNTARY because inorder to exist you have to occupy some space somewhere and if it is all legally occupied you are being stolen from while trying to excercise your right of self-ownership having an absolute right to your labor products (wages). But I doubt you'd ever see the connection.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 08, 2006, 12:14 PM NHFT
QuoteAfter collecting an administrative fee of course, say 30%
how much can it cost?
money comes into one account and someone presses a button and it gets electronically transfered to all the other accounts...
I would gladly volunteer to come in every 6 months and press the button.
You are very naive my friend. ::)
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 08, 2006, 12:14 PM NHFT
QuoteSharing is nice when it's voluntary, when it's not voluntary it's NOT CALLED FREAKING SHARING!!! That's called stealing. But I doubt you'd ever see the connection.
saying that paying your landowner for access to a location is voluntary because you can choose which landowner to pay is nice but it is NOT FREAKING VOLUNTARY because inorder to exist you have to occupy some space somewhere and if it is all legally occupied you are being stolen from while trying to excercise your right of self-ownership having an absolute right to your labor products (wages). But I doubt you'd ever see the connection.
Nobody has a right to exist. Life is such that if you can't make it work you will die. Having others "share" their income with you so that you can live is not a workable system, period. And you have already admited that in your system if a person owes more economic rent than they recieve they will have to work until they die to
pay share this economic rent.
QuoteYou are very naive my friend
I work in the banking software industry...
QuoteNobody has a right to exist
then you can't believe in the right of self-ownership because to exist is to occupy space.
QuoteLife is such that if you can't make it work you will die.
you only have the individual equal access
OPPORTUNITY right to the natural commons to
ATTEMPT to sustain yourself so long as your right is not infringing on anyone else equal right to the same...forcing someone to provide you with sustenance is a positive right I do not recognize as it would be theft of labor products.
QuoteHaving others "share" their income with you so that you can live is not a workable system, period.
"income" is produced via labor...in the case of economic rent you as the landowner contribute no labor towards producing - it is unimproved land value.
economic rent naturally attaches to all location under scarcity conditions as two or more people compete for access to scarce locations...thus it derives from the mere presence of people existing and occupying space (the more people, the higher demand, the greater the economic rent) and from the labor of your neighbors as they labor to improve their property - improved land value.
if the landowner collects it as "income" (your term) it is nothing more than a tax on the labor products of those being excluded that violates their rights of self-ownership.
are you meditating yet on the koan I gave you?
QuoteAnd you have already admited that in your system if a person owes more economic rent than they recieve they will have to work until they die to pay share this economic rent.
I have already twice given you 2 seperate scenarios that would not require a payment from you - are you just dumb or do I need to give them to you again?
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 08, 2006, 01:50 PM NHFT
QuoteYou are very naive my friend
I work in the banking software industry...
As a janitor?
I write management and budgeting software for a living and I can tell you that a lot of work goes into keeping data accurate (software can only do so much). The "button" will only work flawlessly if we live in a perfect world and everyone entered correct data. And that's never going to happen.
You will have to hire thugs to collect economic rent from those who owe more than they recieve.
You will have to purchase servers and hire IT people for an "economic rent database" to keep track of people, properties, etc. Just like the IRS does today.
You will have to send out bills either by snail mail or by email to remind people to pay their economic rent.
You will have to have assesors to figure out how much is owed.
etc... etc... etc...
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 08, 2006, 01:50 PM NHFT
QuoteNobody has a right to exist
then you can't believe in the right of self-ownership because to exist is to occupy space.
I do not believe in the generalized concept of "rights". I think every person has their own idea of how they want to live and that's fine by me. If they agress against me I'll make the decision right then and there about what to do about it. I may also consult the general customs and conventions of the local community that I live in for how to deal with certain circumstances. Other than that we don't have rights. Because in order to have rights a higher power (government, etc) would have to guarantee those rights. Since without a guarantee what are rights but simply our feel good thoughts?
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 08, 2006, 01:50 PM NHFT
QuoteLife is such that if you can't make it work you will die.
you only have the individual equal access OPPORTUNITY right to the natural commons to ATTEMPT to sustain yourself so long as your right is not infringing on anyone else equal right to the same...forcing someone to provide you with sustenance is a positive right I do not recognize as it would be theft of labor products.
See above on rights...
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 08, 2006, 01:50 PM NHFT
QuoteHaving others "share" their income with you so that you can live is not a workable system, period.
"income" is produced via labor...in the case of economic rent you as the landowner contribute no labor towards producing - it is unimproved land value.
economic rent naturally attaches to all location under scarcity conditions as two or more people compete for access to scarce locations...thus it derives from the mere presence of people existing and occupying space (the more people, the higher demand, the greater the economic rent) and from the labor of your neighbors as they labor to improve their property - improved land value.
if the landowner collects it as "income" (your term) it is nothing more than a tax on the labor products of those being excluded that violates their rights of self-ownership.
are you meditating yet on the koan I gave you?
You believe in equality, I do not. It's as simple as that.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on June 08, 2006, 01:50 PM NHFT
QuoteAnd you have already admited that in your system if a person owes more economic rent than they recieve they will have to work until they die to pay share this economic rent.
I have already twice given you 2 seperate scenarios that would not require a payment from you - are you just dumb or do I need to give them to you again?
I read your example as:
Welfare is great, you get all this free money and you never have to pay anything, others pay you...
Sure, it's great, unless you're the one paying into the system! All you talk about are the benefactors of the system while I'm more concerned about those who have to pay into it. So no, I am not dumb, I just like to consider the people who get stuck with paying for the rest of their lives while you only want to discuss the ones you benefit from this system.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 07, 2006, 08:42 PM NHFT
Quote from: tracysaboe on June 07, 2006, 08:22 PM NHFT
It's a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
But Jesus Christ doesn't exist...
Yeah he does. And he exists in a lot of historical documents besides the Bible too.
Tracy
Quote from: tracysaboe on June 08, 2006, 02:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 07, 2006, 08:42 PM NHFT
Quote from: tracysaboe on June 07, 2006, 08:22 PM NHFT
It's a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
But Jesus Christ doesn't exist...
Yeah he does. And he exists in a lot of historical documents besides the Bible too.
He exist
ed then he died. You can't have a personal relationship with a dead person.
But he resurected, and their are extra-biblical sources of that information as well.
Sorry. I'll shut up now. I didn't mean to hijack the hijacker.
I mean, that would be RUDE!
Bill, I apologize for hijacking your hijack.
Tracy
Quote from: tracysaboe on June 08, 2006, 02:53 PM NHFT
But he resurected, and their are extra-biblical sources of that information as well.
So he is alive today and lives in your neighborhood and you visit him often?
QuoteI do not believe in the generalized concept of "rights"....in order to have rights a higher power (government, etc) would have to guarantee those rights
therein lies the problem...the fundamental tenet of classical liberalism/libertarianism is the right of self-ownership.
QuoteYou believe in equality, I do not. It's as simple as that.
you believe that equality and liberty need to be traded off...I believe it is possible to construct a just society based on the concept of equal liberty.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 08, 2006, 02:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: tracysaboe on June 08, 2006, 02:53 PM NHFT
But he resurected, and their are extra-biblical sources of that information as well.
So he is alive today and lives in your neighborhood and you visit him often?
In a manner of speaking.
Tracy
There's another fundamental difference between us and our resident land commie.
We don't believe in "costructing" society.
TRacy
Quote from: lawofattraction on June 08, 2006, 02:51 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 08, 2006, 02:48 PM NHFTHe existed then he died.
Yes, and his tomb is in Kashmir, India.
Here's a picture:
http://www.tombofjesus.com/home.htm
I enjoyed reading this a couple years ago when I first found it. There was a man I worked with whose father-in-law was a Sikh from Srinagar and we talked about this over dinner one evening. Interesting research and stories.
Quote from: lawofattraction on June 08, 2006, 05:38 PM NHFT
Quote from: tracysaboe on June 08, 2006, 05:24 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 08, 2006, 02:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: tracysaboe on June 08, 2006, 02:53 PM NHFT
But he resurected, and their are extra-biblical sources of that information as well.
So he is alive today and lives in your neighborhood and you visit him often?
In a manner of speaking.
Tracy
"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." Philippians 4:13
Maybe you could ask him for some help with your spelling. >:D
Thanks.
I think you'll find that Bill doesn't have a lot of nuts or boltz when it comes to his theories. I've been trying to get them out of him for 3 years or better.
Tracy
Quote from: lawofattraction on June 08, 2006, 05:41 PM NHFT
Frank, you never answered my last group of questions. I want to hear the "nuts and bolts", rather than theoretical, side of your ideas... How are assessments done and what is the tax rate?
I think his system will work exactly like the one we have today, except the property taxes will be redistributed instead of going to pay for government services and that's the only difference.
QuoteHe existed then he died. You can't have a personal relationship with a dead person.
That's what Thomas thought.
Meet Thomas. Thomas was one of his closest friends before he died. Some other friends told him, "Jesus lives again!" but he didn't believe it. It sounded too crazy to him, so he said, "unless I stick my hands in his side, I won't believe!"
Until a few days later when this skeptic stuck his hands in Jesus' pierced side, and then fell down and worshipped: "My Lord and my God!"
Meet James. James was Jesus' brother. Before Jesus died, James mocked him and would try to stop Jesus' preaching. After Jesus was raised, he appeared to James. James was so convinced that he had seen his brother alive, that he became a martyr for Christ.
Meet Saul. Saul was a devoted Jew and persecutor of Christians. One day on the road to persecute Christians in Damascus, he met Jesus. This enemy of Christ also changed profoundly, to the point where he was willing to die for Christ.
This same Paul wrote in one of his early letters that over 500 people had seen the risen Christ. These were people who knew him and had believed in him when he was preaching.
You speak a great truth, Lex, you
can't have a relationship with a dead person.
But you can have one with Jesus, because he lives.
Caleb
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 08, 2006, 02:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: tracysaboe on June 08, 2006, 02:53 PM NHFT
But he resurected, and their are extra-biblical sources of that information as well.
So he is alive today and lives in your neighborhood and you visit him often?
Yes and sometimes he won't turn the radio down. For a diety sometimes he sure is rude.
Quote from: Dietrich Bonhoeffer on June 08, 2006, 10:13 PM NHFT
Meet Thomas. Thomas was one of his closest friends before he died. Some other friends told him, "Jesus lives again!" but he didn't believe it. It sounded too crazy to him, so he said, "unless I stick my hands in his side, I won't believe!"
Until a few days later when this skeptic stuck his hands in Jesus' pierced side, and then fell down and worshipped: "My Lord and my God!"
Okay, so how do I stick my hand into Jesus' side?
Quote from: Pat K on June 08, 2006, 10:24 PM NHFT
Yes and sometimes he won't turn the radio down. For a diety sometimes he sure is rude.
Wow, you've run into him a few times too. Sometimes I feel the same way!
;D
Tracy
QuoteOkay, so how do I stick my hand into Jesus' side?
The million dollar question, Lex, is this:
If tomorrow you were given incontrovertible proof that Jesus is who he says he is, how would you feel?
If your will is sincere, I might be able to help you "stick your hand in Jesus' side" ...
If your will is bent away from it, then nothing can make you believe. Thomas wanted to believe, but couldn't until he had proof.
For some people, even proof isn't enough.
Caleb
Quote from: Dietrich Bonhoeffer on June 09, 2006, 08:28 PM NHFT
QuoteOkay, so how do I stick my hand into Jesus' side?
The million dollar question, Lex, is this:
If tomorrow you were given incontrovertible proof that Jesus is who he says he is, how would you feel?
If your will is sincere, I might be able to help you "stick your hand in Jesus' side" ...
If your will is bent away from it, then nothing can make you believe. Thomas wanted to believe, but couldn't until he had proof.
For some people, even proof isn't enough.
Caleb
If I were to meet Jesus Christ I would believe that he exists but what would that change? I'm not fanatical about believing or disbalieving in him. If he exists, fine, if he doesn't, that's fine too. I guess I just don't see the point. Why would I want to have a relationship with him? I'm married and I have a kid, plus I'm not homosexual so having a personal relationship with another dude would be kinda awkward if you know what i mean...
Dude their are more definitions of "personal" then just sexual.
Tracy
Quote from: tracysaboe on June 09, 2006, 08:49 PM NHFT
Dude their are more definitions of "personal" then just sexual.
Okay, well, personal relationship just sounds weird.
It didn't seem to help? What did you want from him?
Jesus didn't promise anyone riches, fame, security, happiness, or any other thing that this world esteems.
He promised that if you were doing the right thing, you would be hated, persecuted, imprisoned, flogged, and perhaps killed. Of his eleven closest friends, only ONE died a natural death. The rest were brutally murdered. As far as I can tell, following Christ isn't supposed to improve your lot in life in the here and now. At least, not with respect to tangible, physical things.
Quote
I think that he is floating around up there somewhere but that he doesn't really have the power to save anyone else
He said that he could. He's not a man known for his flakiness. How could a man of such wisdom be so wrong about something so important?
Caleb
I find that God speaks through people a lot, Law. Sometimes through our own heart. Sometimes through music.
He does communicate. But we have to quiet our own fears and listen. And that's the hardest thing to do. I've been there, am there, and will be there again I'm sure.
Trusting Christ is not a magic key that solves every problem. It can clarify some of them, but we live in a world that's pretty messed up. Salvation is for eternity. Sometimes with our short life spans we lose sight of the larger picture. That was the hardest thing for me to accept coming to Christ.
Caleb
Consider the magnitude of the problem, Law. ;) I mean, it took billions of years to create everything we have now, and that's much simpler than convincing Tracey to use a spell checker. :)
ODE TO SPELL CHECKERS
I have a spelling checker
I disc covered four my PC.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot see.
Eye ran this poem threw it.
Your sure real glad two no.
Its very polished in its weigh,
My checker tolled me sew.
A checker is a blessing.
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right awl stiles two reed,
And aides me when aye rime.
Each frays comes posed up on my screen
Eye trussed too bee a joule.
The checker pours o'er every word
To cheque sum spelling rule.
Bee fore wee rote with checkers
Hour spelling was inn deck line,
Butt now when wee dew have a laps,
Wee are not maid too wine.
And now bee cause my spelling
Is checked with such grate flare,
There are know faults in awl this peace,
Of nun eye am a wear.
To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should be proud,
And wee mussed dew the best wee can,
Sew flaws are knot aloud.
That's why eye brake in two averse
Cuz Eye dew want too please.
Sow glad eye yam that aye did bye
This soft wear four pea seas.
Quote from: Pat McCotter on June 10, 2006, 06:54 PM NHFT
ODE TO SPELL CHECKERS
Did you run this through the Poetry Czar (http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?action=profile;u=536)?
;D
LOL
Karma to Kevin
Tracy