The Georgists

[Ron Helwig]

So, you're saying that changing the value of the land is the criteria. What if I don't change the value? merely wish to claim it?

Wishing doesn't make it so. If you lessen the value of something that others have just as much right to as you do, then you are causing harm to others.
If you improve the value, then you are voluntarily donating, which I'm OK with 

What is the basis of your claim?

[AlanM]

So, you're saying that changing the value of the land is the criteria. What if I don't change the value? merely wish to claim it?

Wishing doesn't make it so. If you lessen the value of something that others have just as much right to as you do, then you are causing harm to others.
If you improve the value, then you are voluntarily donating, which I'm OK with?

What is the basis of your claim?

I was trying to see the difference between your views and Hanksters.
Claim - Homesteading unclaimed land.

[Ron Helwig]

What is the basis of your claim?

I was trying to see the difference between your views and Hanksters.
Claim - Homesteading unclaimed land.

I'd say I came around to geo-libertarianism from a completely different route than Hankster.

I don't accept Locke's idea that "mixing your labor" gives you the right to claim the land. The underlying idea there is that 'productive use of the land makes right' (as in "might makes right"), and that leads to situations like the one in New London CT, where Pfizer is making a justifiable claim that they will make more productive use of the land. No, there needs to be some other basis for a claim than productivity.

I also don't accept "I saw it first", because that's obviously not true.

So, I asked myself how someone rightfully takes posession of land. In most cases, you purchase the land from the current owner in a voluntary transaction. But when you trace the ownership back, you naturally find a first owner. That's where I had to think about it for a while. I would love it if someone could come up with a rational basis for making a claim on land that differs from what I've derived, but doesn't rely on either "I saw it first" or "productive use".

I think the beauty of geo-libertarianism is that it gives socialists like Henry George what they seem to want, without initiating force; and it gives libertarians what they want, without inhibiting their freedom.

[Pat K]

What about.....George, George, George of the Jungle??

I think he's busy." watching out for that tree"

[AlanM]

What about.....George, George, George of the Jungle??

I think he's busy." watching out for that tree"

Which tree? The one that falls in the forest when no one is there? 

If a man is out in the woods, alone, and far from his wife, is he still wrong?

[Pat K]

What about.....George, George, George of the Jungle??

I think he's busy." watching out for that tree"

Which tree? The one that falls in the forest when no one is there??

If a man is out in the woods, alone, and far from his wife, is he still wrong?

He is wrong for being in the woods, instead of at the store picking up milk like his wife told him to.

[Pat McCotter]

Deja vu, Scott?

[Lex]

So, am I to understand that the Georgists have put their tails between their legs and gone home? 

[Ron Helwig]

So, am I to understand that the Georgists have put their tails between their legs and gone home? 

Nope, just a little too busy with actual work. Debate is fine, but its better to actually DO something.

Besides, I kinda like the way it faded into absurdity and comedy 

[Lex]

So, am I to understand that the Georgists have put their tails between their legs and gone home? 

Nope, just a little too busy with actual work. Debate is fine, but its better to actually DO something.

Besides, I kinda like the way it faded into absurdity and comedy 

Well, it doesn't sound very comical to me though, unless you consider it to be comical and don't actually intend to implement any of the Georgist ideas.

By "DO"ing are you creating the government that will be required the collect the rent?

[Ron Helwig]

Nope, just a little too busy with actual work. Debate is fine, but its better to actually DO something.

Besides, I kinda like the way it faded into absurdity and comedy 

Well, it doesn't sound very comical to me though, unless you consider it to be comical and don't actually intend to implement any of the Georgist ideas.

Really?

If a man is out in the woods, alone, and far from his wife, is he still wrong?

By "DO"ing are you creating the government that will be required the collect the rent?

By DOing I mean actually

• Working
• Building my house
• Pushing for liberty
• Working

Haven't had time to visit the site for a few days.

Now if someone actually wants to debate (and not just say "you're wrong" without any backing) then I'm up for it. But seriously, there's a LOT more important stuff to be working on.

[Lex]

Now if someone actually wants to debate (and not just say "you're wrong" without any backing) then I'm up for it. But seriously, there's a LOT more important stuff to be working on.

I will not tell you you are wrong without any backing.

I have been thinking a lot about this and arguing on other forums and I have the following points to make:

Lets ignore philosophy for a minute because often times it comes down to simply who believes in which religion.

Lets look at it from a practical stand point.

Georgists believe that every person is "entitled" to some land and that if you are living in an apartment you should be compensated for allowing someone else to use "your" land, then you can use that money to pay for your rent at the apartment you are living in. This provides a fair system whereby someone who wants lots of land can get the land if he is willing to compensate those who "gave up their right" to that land, and those who gave up their "right to land" can use the money to pay for rent wherever they are living.

Basically there are two systems:

1. Landowners pay a tax on land to those who do not own land.
2. Renters pay a "tax" to live in an apartment building.

Obviously we have to decide between the two systems. To do that we should look at which system would create the most amount of waste and force.

To implement the Georgist idea (#1) a government is required, to determine the cost of taxes, to collect the taxes, to enforce the collection of taxes, distribution of taxes back to the 'renters' and to punish those who refuse to pay the taxes. There are many variables that play in this bureaucracy: what is the basis for determining taxes? how often will the taxes be collected? how will the taxes be collected? who will enforce/perform the collection of taxes? what are the punishments for not paying taxes? if someone does not pay their taxes and you take their land, where do you put the property that is on this land? does this person go to jail? when in jail will this person get paid for rent (since his cell is probably much smaller then the 'average' land lot per person, which means someone else is using his land)? how do you determine what size of land each person should have? do you adjust the size of land people have based on the population? as more people are born do taxes go up to pay all those new people? how much of the taxes collected is kept by the government to pay for the bureaucracy, how is this determined? what market forces affect the government to be fair? what kind of government is it, democracy/republic/dictatorship? will there be waste and corruption in this government as there is in the government today? how will you deal with this waste and corruption?

In a Libertarian society nobody has a "right" to land. When you are born you live with your parents or guardian or in a foster home. You labor to earn capital, then you use this capital to buy however much land you can afford. While you earn the capital if you choose to venture out on your own you can live on someone else property for a fee. Eventually if you do not like living on someone else property you can purchase your own property.

What do you think? Do you have answers to every single questions I asked about the Georgist implementation?

[Lex]

If you are a renter in a geo-libertarian society, the government has no need to even know you exist (unless you are a criminal or a voter).

Then how do you get paid? If someone else is living on my share of the land do I not get paid so that I could cover some of my renting expense?

[Lex]

I put it like this:
1) No one has original right to any particular piece of land, everyone has the same right to use it.
2) Individual ownership of land is the most efficient way to allocate usage of land, thus we desire a civil right of ownership.
3) If someone is to claim a monopoly on a piece of land, they owe everyone else for that exclusive privelege.
4) The value of the land is owed to each generation. This means that the landowner owes each generation the value of the land without factoring in improvements.

Philosophy.

5) Taking a generation as 20 years, this means a tax rate maximum of 5% of the unimproved value of the land. Anything more than that is theft. This total applies to the total of all taxes at all levels of government. For example, if the feds get 1% and the state gets 2%, that leaves 2% for county and town.

Why 20 years? Why 5% of the unimproved value? Also, what is this 5%? Is it in gold, chickens, fiat money? (what if i own land and am completely self sufficient so I do not have any money or gold or anything to pay my tax with?) Why is more than 5% theft? Is that just your theory? How do you determine how much each branch of government gets? What does the government do with this money, pay the bureaucrats? Do people get to vote where the money goes? Are you basically advocating the same government we have today just different taxing system?

6) Correlary: those who aren't landowners pay their fair share for land usage through their landlord.

You pay a land tax even if you don't own land? Huh?

7) Correlary: the government only needs to know about landowners, not renters.

How do the renters get paid then?

8 ) Problem: how to determine the unimproved value of the land? (I assume someone with a real estate background can answer this one better than I could)

I'd say that's a pretty major problem... you can't possibly advocate this system if you can't answer such a critical question.

I know most of us here don't care about this one, but the land tax is the only tax that can't be avoided. Where this should be important to us here is that that means there need be no "compliance enforcement" agencies needing powers that violate individual rights in order to work. The income tax requires the IRS to violate our right to privacy (as well as others). The sales tax violates our right to private contracts (requiring us to include government as a third party to every sale).

Uh... but I will refuse to pay this tax! You will not do anything to me if I do not pay up? That doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone pay at all if there is no government forcing you to?

[Lex]

1) test and refine my beliefs, and
2) persuade others to come around to my beliefs.

You cannot convince others to come around to your beliefs unless your beliefs actually make sense and so far this is not the case. Specifically, I'm talking about the major wholes that exist in implementing your idea.

Communism, for example, is also a good idea until you get to implementing it that it fails.