The Georgists

[tracysaboe]

Tolstoy was actually a Christian anarchist.

That's a tad different from wanting a government beurocracy to take and money from one party to give to another.

Troll.

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

The only time we seem to be buddies is when we're gaining up on that WarMonger Mainshark.

Other then that, we're usually fairly angatonistic towards one another.

Tracy

[BillG]

hmm...sounds familiar to me!

have we ever agreed on anything?

[BillG]

Tolstoy was actually a Christian anarchist.

That's a tad different from wanting a government beurocracy to take and money from one party to give to another.

how do you explain the quote Tracy?

do you think I just made this stuff up?

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_n4_v56/ai_20381878

quote:
"the earth cannot be anyone's property; it cannot be bought or sold any more than water, air, or sunshine. All have an equal right to the advantages it gives to men."(11)

Inescapably a member of the countrified patrician class, Tolstoy preached to his peasants about morality, and of course, Georgist philosophy. Such episodes appear in his latest work. Nekhlyudov, who desires to relinquish his estates, speaks with his peasants "and began to explain Henry George's single-tax system":

"The earth is no man's; it is God's," he began . . . .

"The land is common to all. All have the same right to it. But there is good land and bad land, and everyone would like to take the good land. What is one to do in order to get it justly divided? . . . . "As it would be difficult to say who should pay to whom, and as money is needed for communal use, it should be arranged that he who uses the good land should pay the [assessed] value of that land to the commune. . . . Then everyone would share equally . . . . [One should pay] more for the good land, less for the bad land. If you do not wish to use land, don't pay anything . . . . "

"That's correct," said the oven-builder, raising his eyebrows. "He who has good land must pay more."

[Kat Kanning]

One does not need take a person's ideas in whole.  His thought on non-violent civil disobedience are interesting.  I don't throw them out just because he was a christian or just because he had some nutty idea about not owning land.

[Kat Kanning]

No thanks.  I think we'd have less problem with no "public" i.e. government lands at all.  You'd have everyone's property taken over by eminent domain.

[BillG]

No thanks.? I think we'd have less problem with no "public" i.e. government lands at all.? You'd have everyone's property taken over by eminent domain.

how are you going to petition the government to argue there shouldn't be a government if you don't believe there is some place in which you have the right to stand to petition protected by the government from others infringing upon your right?

[BillG]

One does not need take a person's ideas in whole.? His thought on non-violent civil disobedience are interesting.? I don't throw them out just because he was a christian or just because he had some nutty idea about not owning land.

ownership rights are not a single right but rather a bundle of rights that include:

1. use
2. exclusion
3. possession
4. transferability
5. rent

Tolstoy believed that only the rent needed to be paid to your neighbors inorder for there to be equal liberty while use, exclusion, possession, transferability remained in private hands so one could be secure in the fruits of one's labor - the true source of property rights.

[Ron Helwig]

What gives you (or anyone) the right to deny others use of a portion of the land?

You didn't create the land, and neither did anyone else. The land is not the result of anyone's work or life, unlike improvements made to the land, like clearing it of trees for farming or building a house.

Why do you get exclusive right to any particular area? It is certainly not because you can make use of it (this is where Locke fails). Those protesting in New London should understand this, since if making use of the land is the criteria, then Pfizer should get the land because they will be using it more productively.

You also can't go by the childish "I saw it first" criteria, because "no, you didn't". Example: An explorer treks into Kentucky and finds a nice lot of land. He spends a couple months clearing a place to farm, seeing no other living person the entire time. Just when his first crops are ready for picking, a group of natives come by and demand he leave their hunting land. In any system where there can be competing claims, there needs to be a system of adjudicating disputes - thus government (for resolving disputes over land ownership).

Please take some time to actually think about land.

Henry George may have had some loony ideas, but he was pretty well spot on when it came to land and taxation.

I consider land ownership to be a civil right, not a human right; as in it is a created right not an inherent one.

[DC]

If you tax houses you get less houses - no?

Tell me why I want more houses.

You have a fatal flaw in your plan Greenbacks. If we tax land and give it to all my neighbors we will have freeloaders from all over the Northeast come to New Hampshire. Your plan has me giving money to all the people in my community from the price increases in land value ( A lot of which is due to inflation anyway. When I move to the next place I will have lost the increase due to inflation but the next place will have gone up and I will have to pay the difference.). When these freeloaders don't get their check because of the next depression they will vote in more welfare.

[BillG]

If you tax houses you get less houses - no?

Tell me why I want more houses.

You have a fatal flaw in your plan Greenbacks. If we tax land and give it to all my neighbors we will have freeloaders from all over the Northeast come to New Hampshire. Your plan has me giving money to all the people in my community from the price increases in land value ( A lot of which is due to inflation anyway. When I move to the next place I will have lost the increase due to inflation but the next place will have gone up and I will have to pay the difference.). When these freeloaders don't get their check because of the next depression they will vote in more welfare.

here are the flaws in your argument.

1. we want more housing downtown (not houses) because some people are paying up to 50% of their wages for housing...the economic rent landowner's are collecting is a defacto tax on their labor (immediate for tenants and later for buyers) - a blantant violation of their labor-based property rights and thus self-ownership.
2. all social welfare (citizens dividend is a right to insure equal liberty not charity) is ended as all taxes on labor/capital are removed - so there is not net "gain" for someone to move here.
3. I would deal with inflation in a similiar way
4. if the "next place" is sharing economic rent too then it is relative.

[DC]

2. all social welfare (citizens dividend is a right to insure equal liberty not charity) is ended as all taxes on labor/capital are removed - so there is not net "gain" for someone to move here.

They will come to get their free money.

4. if the "next place" is sharing economic rent too then it is relative.

The other states arn't going to be sharing economic rent so this is useless.

[BillG]

They will come to get their free money.

there is no net gain because there are NO social services...

The other states arn't going to be sharing economic rent so this is useless.

the other states are going to have sales and income tax - why would you move?

[DC]

the other states are going to have sales and income tax - why would you move?

Freeloaders don't have income. At least reportable income. You arn't listening are you? THE FREE CASH.

The cash is better for them because they can buy drugs and alcohol and other crap that freeloaders spend their money on.

[Dreepa]

1. we want more housing downtown (not houses) because some people are paying up to 50% of their wages for housing...the economic rent landowner's are collecting is a defacto tax on their labor (immediate for tenants and later for buyers) - a blantant violation of their labor-based property rights and thus self-ownership.

If you want more housing downtown then go buy some land an create apt buildings I won't stop you.
When I lived in LA I paid 50% of my wages to rent.
I had two choices.  Move to a cheaper place or make more money.  I never got mad at my landlord for that reason.  That is what the market was for housing.
I decided to get a better job.  ( and then later leave LA!)