The Georgists

[BillG]

The land that grows the orange has been labored on and hence the land itself is a labor-created property.

if this isn't a logically inconsistent statement then I don't know what is!

labored ON the land to create oranges
the land ITSELF is labor-created

the land itself is not "created by" labor it pre-exists labor
the "unimproved land value" is not created by the landowner's labor but rather by those who labor in proximity

[BillG]

please point out exactly how this is "inconsistent"...it is perfectly logical and rational.

Treating different kinds of property differently, is incosistent. If you grant the existence of private property, it shouldn't matter what kind of property it is. Either private property exists, or it doesn't. Period. Placing public conditions on private property negates the very fact of its being private.

the consistency is that private property is created from LABOR and therefore treating land as exclusively private property is fine up until the point that the very act of exclusive use VIOLATES the OBVIOUS labor-based property rights of those being excluded.

it is perfectly consistent, logical and rational as the father of property rights John Locke described in his conditional declaration (proviso) back in the 1600's

[polyanarch]

please point out exactly how this is "inconsistent"...it is perfectly logical and rational.

Treating different kinds of property differently, is incosistent. If you grant the existence of private property, it shouldn't matter what kind of property it is. Either private property exists, or it doesn't. Period. Placing public conditions on private property negates the very fact of its being private.

"Land" is just a bunch of rocks.  The whole concept of private property NOT being applicable to the earth is just nonsense.  The Georgists are a bunch of spiratual Gia-worshipping morons who don't get that fact.  It's like the "intellegent design" morons who just can't get the fact that our whole universe is just made up of atoms that go on for infinity.  Yes, it's complicated -that's the nature of infinity!  It doesn't need a boogy-man to create it...

Any number of atoms can be property -even sub-atomic particles can be property of some individual.

But if you start talking about the "one-electron theory" that gets pretty complicated to individual property rights...

[AlanM]

please point out exactly how this is "inconsistent"...it is perfectly logical and rational.

Treating different kinds of property differently, is incosistent. If you grant the existence of private property, it shouldn't matter what kind of property it is. Either private property exists, or it doesn't. Period. Placing public conditions on private property negates the very fact of its being private.

the consistency is that private property is created from LABOR and therefore treating land as exclusively private property is fine up until the point that the very act of exclusive use VIOLATES the OBVIOUS labor-based property rights of those being excluded.

it is perfectly consistent, logical and rational as the father of property rights John Locke described in his conditional declaration (proviso) back in the 1600's

From the dictionary:
Private property - any property, real or personal, which the owner has the right to control, use, and dispose of as he wills.


So, Hankster, I guess you don't believe in private property. As I said, placing conditions on its use negates the very fact of its being private.

[BillG]

please point out exactly how this is "inconsistent"...it is perfectly logical and rational.

Treating different kinds of property differently, is incosistent. If you grant the existence of private property, it shouldn't matter what kind of property it is. Either private property exists, or it doesn't. Period. Placing public conditions on private property negates the very fact of its being private.

the consistency is that private property is created from LABOR and therefore treating land as exclusively private property is fine up until the point that the very act of exclusive use VIOLATES the OBVIOUS labor-based property rights of those being excluded.

it is perfectly consistent, logical and rational as the father of property rights John Locke described in his conditional declaration (proviso) back in the 1600's

From the dictionary:
Private property - any property, real or personal, which the owner has the right to control, use, and dispose of as he wills.


So, Hankster, I guess you don't believe in private property. As I said, placing conditions on its use negates the very fact of its being private.

and as I have said - ownership is not one single right but rather a bundle of rights (anyone of which can be alienated) that include:

1. use
2. possession
3. exclusion
4. transferability
5. economic rent (beyond Locke's Proviso)

BUT - if you make the last bundled right that only appears beyond Locke's Proviso, the return on land (economic rent), an ABSOLUTE property right of the landowner, then you WILL make the return on labor (wages) a CONDITIONAL property right of those being excluded.

this is an irrefutable FACT that was a fundamental understanding of classical liberal theory.

[BillG]

The whole concept of private property NOT being applicable to the earth is just nonsense

ok - who made it?

then we will know who owns it...

[AlanM]

this is an irrefutable FACT that was a fundamental understanding of classical liberal theory.

Is it a fact or a theory? Theories are not facts. Theories are suppositions. That is the continued flaw in your thinking. You treat theories as facts. They are not.

[BillG]

if you make land an ABSOLUTE property right then you HAVE TO make labor CONDITIONAL
if you make labor an ABSOLUTE property right then you HAVE TO make land CONDITIONAL

if you make labor CONDITIONAL then there can be NO right to self-ownership.
if you make land CONDITIONAL then there can be the right to self-ownership and Hong Kong proves this point by being rated the highest in economic freedom.

and NH is the Free State BECAUSE it relies on the property tax for public finance.

I am simply making the case that it will become MORE free if taxation were removed from buildings and collected solely from the socially created land values that today is being paid for by those being excluded out of their wages.

[AlanM]

if you make land an ABSOLUTE property right then you HAVE TO make labor CONDITIONAL
if you make labor an ABSOLUTE property right then you HAVE TO make land CONDITIONAL

if you make labor CONDITIONAL then there can be NO right to self-ownership.
if you make land CONDITIONAL then there can be the right to self-ownership and Hong Kong proves this point by being rated the highest in economic freedom.

and NH is the Free State BECAUSE it relies on the property tax for public finance.

I am simply making the case that it will become MORE free if taxation were removed from buildings and collected solely from the socially created land values that today is being paid for by those being excluded out of their wages.

Some of us don't subscribe to your THEORIES.

[Dreepa]

if you make land an ABSOLUTE property right then you HAVE TO make labor CONDITIONAL
if you make labor an ABSOLUTE property right then you HAVE TO make land CONDITIONAL

if you make labor CONDITIONAL then there can be NO right to self-ownership.
if you make land CONDITIONAL then there can be the right to self-ownership and Hong Kong proves this point by being rated the highest in economic freedom.

and NH is the Free State BECAUSE it relies on the property tax for public finance.

I am simply making the case that it will become MORE free if taxation were removed from buildings and collected solely from the socially created land values that today is being paid for by those being excluded out of their wages.

Some of us don't subscribe to your THEORIES.

MOST of us.

[polyanarch]

if you make land an ABSOLUTE property right then you HAVE TO make labor CONDITIONAL
if you make labor an ABSOLUTE property right then you HAVE TO make land CONDITIONAL

if you make labor CONDITIONAL then there can be NO right to self-ownership.
if you make land CONDITIONAL then there can be the right to self-ownership and Hong Kong proves this point by being rated the highest in economic freedom.

and NH is the Free State BECAUSE it relies on the property tax for public finance.

I am simply making the case that it will become MORE free if taxation were removed from buildings and collected solely from the socially created land values that today is being paid for by those being excluded out of their wages.

Some of us don't subscribe to your THEORIES.

MOST of us.

That's a good thing Martha

[BillG]

On the Merrimack Forum an interesting discussion has spring up regarding the tax burden of each town in NH.

Unfortunately no one can agree as to what ?tax burden? actually means.  Is it the highest tax rate?  Is it the most in taxes per average income for that town?  Is it the most in taxes for homes of equal value?

So I thought I?d put the topic on here to see if anyone had any ideas on how to determine ?tax burden? and based on what definition we give for it which town?s have the highest in the state.

Two homes of similar age and size and condition, one in the Seacoast, one in say, Whitefield NH. Same acreage, neither has a magnificent view, or water frontage. The home in the Seacoast will have a much higher value, so the taxes paid will be much higher on the Seacoast home, even though Whitefield's tax rate is similar to say, Exeter's. Seacoast homes are at least twice as costly as the ones in Whitefield. Average income in Exeter is most likely much higher than in Whitefield. Is it "fair" that Seacost homes pay more in total taxes? Is it "fair" that average income in Exeter is higher than in Whitefield?

There is no such thing, IMHO, as a "fair tax". Taxes are never fair. Taxes are theft.

then get rid of the "taxes" that tenants and future buyers pay out of their wages to landowners for what is socially created value...

[AlanM]

Question for Hankster:
Can your theories be fullfilled without the use of force? Are you willing to go with a voluntary system?

[AlanM]

On the Merrimack Forum an interesting discussion has spring up regarding the tax burden of each town in NH.

Unfortunately no one can agree as to what ?tax burden? actually means.? Is it the highest tax rate?? Is it the most in taxes per average income for that town?? Is it the most in taxes for homes of equal value?

So I thought I?d put the topic on here to see if anyone had any ideas on how to determine ?tax burden? and based on what definition we give for it which town?s have the highest in the state.

Two homes of similar age and size and condition, one in the Seacoast, one in say, Whitefield NH. Same acreage, neither has a magnificent view, or water frontage. The home in the Seacoast will have a much higher value, so the taxes paid will be much higher on the Seacoast home, even though Whitefield's tax rate is similar to say, Exeter's. Seacoast homes are at least twice as costly as the ones in Whitefield. Average income in Exeter is most likely much higher than in Whitefield. Is it "fair" that Seacost homes pay more in total taxes? Is it "fair" that average income in Exeter is higher than in Whitefield?

There is no such thing, IMHO, as a "fair tax". Taxes are never fair. Taxes are theft.

then get rid of the "taxes" that tenants and future buyers pay out of their wages to landowners for what is socially created value...

Your system is a forced system of payments, similar to taxes.

[BillG]

Question for Hankster:
Can your theories be fullfilled without the use of force? Are you willing to go with a voluntary system?

force is being used today by landowners...

if you don't pay the economic rent portion of your lease which violates your labor-based property right to your wages the landowner will call the police and throw you out...