The Georgists

[ladyattis]

I can imagine the farmers that could be displaced under the LVT...Like they did in Japan... How kind of the Georgist scumbags. Sorry, I'll be manning the armory just in case you smart alecks try anything. I suggest you take a hint, you have no rights, but the one to think for yourself and live for yourself. Georgism takes it away for everyone for the sake of the group. The group has no capacity to exert reason, memory, or morality, thus it will always be a beast, a thug, and a murderer of innocents.

-- Bridget

[Fluff and Stuff]

fuck george and fuck this thread
;0)

[ladyattis]

Now you know why the Japanese stopped the LVT? Cause it displaced farmers and home owners for some 'greater good'. In fact I realized that what this geolib idea is about is a utilitarian view of land 'economics.'

Say you're sitting in your car in your favorite metered parking spot at lunch, then some guy comes by asking you to move because he needs to close an important business dealing nearby and he doesn't want to walk. You say no...He goes away, then a few minutes later some big ass car tosses your car onto the sidewalk. The man that does this, being the one that asked you kindly to move, tells you that the law is on his side, which it would be if it was a geolib world, and that he's charging you a fee for interfering with the 'greater good' of business....Essentially, this is what Geolibertarianism does, no matter how many safe guards they put into place, if a man with more capital than you can buy the LVT title, he will get it. That is what happened in Japan with farmers, and that is what WILL happen if it is instituted here.

-- Bridget

[AlanM]

My problem with the Georgists is that they assume that I owe someone something by the mere fact that I exist. Sorry. Nada.

[Lex]

fuck george and fuck this thread
;0)

I agree with some of your points.

[hankster]

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

I am back...

[hankster]

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.

Nowhere have you explained how you plan to get people to pay taxes without forcing them.

the same way landlords get it from their tenants...

[Fluff and Stuff]

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.

Nowhere have you explained how you plan to get people to pay taxes without forcing them.

the same way landlords get it from their tenants...

Through force.  Now I understand...

[Ron Helwig]

Nowhere have you explained how you plan to get people to pay taxes without forcing them.

the same way landlords get it from their tenants...

Through force.  Now I understand...

All taxes are based on force.
All governments are based on force.

Without government, land ownership is based on force (you have to defend your claim).
With government, land ownership is based on force (the government is essentially "contracted" to defend your claim).
Land ownership is based on force. The question is: "what are the rules under which that force may be applied?"

If you are going to have government, that government needs money which it must get by force. The question becomes "what are the rules under which that force may be applied?"

[AlanM]

Nowhere have you explained how you plan to get people to pay taxes without forcing them.

the same way landlords get it from their tenants...

Through force.? Now I understand...

All taxes are based on force.
All governments are based on force.

Without government, land ownership is based on force (you have to defend your claim).
With government, land ownership is based on force (the government is essentially "contracted" to defend your claim).
Land ownership is based on force. The question is: "what are the rules under which that force may be applied?"

If you are going to have government, that government needs money which it must get by force. The question becomes "what are the rules under which that force may be applied?"

So lets get rid of ALL government, and ALL taxes. Tuaths will be the guiding light. 

[Lex]

rhelwig - You never responded to my earlier posts.

[Ron Helwig]

There's a lot of stuff here, and I've been busy (like going to the Londonderry protests today!)

How is this "equal right" a right if the people who are denyed are not compensated in anyway?

I would say they get compensated by the government services provided by the land owners paying the tax.

It's like if people had a right to not be murdered and someone went around killing people and as long as the killer simply paid a "death" tax to the government he would be allowed to practice his hobby.

Sounds like a twilight zone episode 

I don't think the comparison sticks though. There is an obvious connection between a person and their life. This connection extends to their productive efforts. It doesn't extend to a particular piece of land.

I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist. I do not believed in a monopoly government.

I really like Anarcho-Capitalism. I just don't see a proper basis for land ownership in it. (Admittedly I haven't read everything on it)

What this leads to is that everyone who makes use of land ends up paying their fair share: landowners pay directly via the land tax, and renters pay indirectly through their rent. Incidentally, this is the only tax I know of that has an inherent moral limitation (5%). All other taxes only have practical limits (as much as the people are willing to bear).

That 5% limit is based on the premise that each generation is owed for the use of the land. Taking a generation as 20 years, a landowner should rightfully pay 5% (and NO MORE) of the unimproved value of the land each year.

Why is this "inherent moral limitation" 5%? How did you derive this percentage? Why not 4% of 6%?

100% / 20 = 5% 

I do acknowledge that there is a problem of definition - what is a generation? I use 20 years partly because it really simplifies things, but I don't see any number being any better.

Do you know of any other taxes that have limits? (Other than "what is politically acceptable")

Yes, to implement this system a government is required. In an anarchy, this is probably unworkable; but then I don't see how land ownership in an anarchy is based on anything other than raw force. (I'd be glad to hear any reasoned alternatives!)

Please explain to me how private property is not backed by raw force today. In fact, when has private property ever existed without somekind of "raw force" backing up its claim?

Of course all private property is backed by force.

My point was that you needed a government to run your system. But it seems like you are in favor of having a government anyways - with all of it's inherent corruption, waste and destruction of freedoms among other things.

I'm not sure I want government, but if we gotta have one then it needs to be paid for somehow.

That depends on how the price was set:

Arbitrarily - Is it set arbitrarily at the whim of some bureaucrats? Will the values be reset each time a new bureaucrat with new ideas of value comes into power? Or everytime the valuation manual is rewritten or updated? Basically we are opening up the values of our homes to the chaotic forces of government (although if history is any indication I'd say it's chaotic only by how much the values sky rocket as the government gets more and more greedy)

Market - Is it set by the market? If it is set by the market than it has to be driven by demand. The more people that are born the more demand there is. Thus the value will most likely go up proportionately to the increase in population.

Eitherway your taxes will continue to go up ad finitum just as they do today.

Ayup. I certainly prefer market determining the value. I like the idea that the tax basis gets set upon purchase. The taxable value certainly shouldn't increase more than the "official" government inflation numbers.


I still want to know if there is any other rational basis for deciding who gets to own any particular piece of land.

[Lex]

I still want to know if there is any other rational basis for deciding who gets to own any particular piece of land.

Under Geo*nism how do you determine who gets a particular plot of land?

[Ron Helwig]

I still want to know if there is any other rational basis for deciding who gets to own any particular piece of land.

Under Geo*nism how do you determine who gets a particular plot of land?

That's a good question.

My answer is something like:
Any land that is already owned is owned by the current owners.
Any land that is not claimed by anyone should be made available for sale with the proceeds going to the most local government body that entirely contains the land in question (just because I like things to be handled as locally as possible, not for any theoretical reasons).

There's no need for any redistribution. Wasn't it Coase that proved that? Just set the rules, and stick with them; and it will all work itself out.


So, back at ya: under a non-geo system, how do you do it? What is the basis of the right to own land (i.e. why is there a right to own land?)
All I've heard so far is stuff like "I saw it first, so I should have it". (although I am a bit behind in reading the forum, and I try to leave the philosophical discussions for last)

[Lex]

I still want to know if there is any other rational basis for deciding who gets to own any particular piece of land.

Under Geo*nism how do you determine who gets a particular plot of land?

That's a good question.

My answer is something like:
Any land that is already owned is owned by the current owners.
Any land that is not claimed by anyone should be made available for sale with the proceeds going to the most local government body that entirely contains the land in question (just because I like things to be handled as locally as possible, not for any theoretical reasons).

There's no need for any redistribution. Wasn't it Coase that proved that? Just set the rules, and stick with them; and it will all work itself out.


So, back at ya: under a non-geo system, how do you do it? What is the basis of the right to own land (i.e. why is there a right to own land?)
All I've heard so far is stuff like "I saw it first, so I should have it". (although I am a bit behind in reading the forum, and I try to leave the philosophical discussions for last)

When it's convenient you say that you would rather have no government and then other times having government is the premise of your arguments.

Which is it? DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT WANT GOVERNMENT?

Lets be a little consistent.