The Georgists

[Cotton]

Maybe it would be easier to understand you if we take the question/answer approach:

Do you think that owning of property should be absolute? Meaning if you purchased from the original owner or found and homesteaded land than you should have complete authority over this land and that there should be no legal (ie, Eminent Domain) way to take this land away?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? Yes but occupation and posseion is nine tents of the law. If someone makes a claim on the land that another is using they have to prove their claim before a jury. As I point out to Bill or the Hankter any debt claim must also be proven in court before a jury if the one in posseion wants a jury hearing.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? This is true with land, cars, trucks, boats, TVs, Computers, Easy Chairs, watches or? boar hogs, posseion is nine tents of the law.

Please explain what you mean by "nine tents of the law"?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Sorry I meant nine tenths or 90%.
That is a common law English and? now American Common law doctrine that has been a standard for hundreds of years like? A man's home is his castle before Blackstone, before Edward Coke, probally before Edward the Conqueor took over England in the 11th century, back to Anglo Saxon days, maybe before that.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? occupation is not 100%, another person may have enough evidence to prove it is his property. Like I know people who's land was taken to build Interstate 75, they could take it to court to get back their land or divert traffic and dig up the pavement where their farm was or leave it be and charge a toll where their farm was The latter two would probally be more solid in a legitimate court.

[Lex]

Sorry I meant nine tenths or 90%.
That is a common law English and  now American Common law doctrine that has been a standard for hundreds of years like  A man's home is his castle before Blackstone, before Edward Coke, probally before Edward the Conqueor took over England in the 11th century, back to Anglo Saxon days, maybe before that.                                                                                         
    occupation is not 100%, another person may have enough evidence to prove it is his property. Like I know people who's land was taken to build Interstate 75, they could take it to court to get back their land or divert traffic and dig up the pavement where their farm was or leave it be and charge a toll where their farm was The latter two would probally be more solid in a legitimate court.

It seems to me like you agree with what most of us have been saying. I don't understand why you had to start your conversation by stating we are all wrong. If you do not have the time to read our previous posts to determine this than why would you expect us to take the time and understand your point of view?

[Cotton]

Sorry I meant nine tenths or 90%.
That is a common law English and? now American Common law doctrine that has been a standard for hundreds of years like? A man's home is his castle before Blackstone, before Edward Coke, probally before Edward the Conqueor took over England in the 11th century, back to Anglo Saxon days, maybe before that.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? occupation is not 100%, another person may have enough evidence to prove it is his property. Like I know people who's land was taken to build Interstate 75, they could take it to court to get back their land or divert traffic and dig up the pavement where their farm was or leave it be and charge a toll where their farm was The latter two would probally be more solid in a legitimate court.

It seems to me like you agree with what most of us have been saying. I don't understand why you had to start your conversation by stating we are all wrong. If you do not have the time to read our previous posts to determine this than why would you expect us to take the time and understand your point of view?

Well I usally like to  play a pox on both house, both sides of an argument because both sides are usually wrong on some point. Sorry it is a habit I got into going  on the AOL Democrat versus Republican Chatrooms, I guess I got to much of a kick out of it when it was clear their usual counter points did not work with what I was saying.                                                           
   Best I remember my post were first aimed at Bill who I think is a honest man and the Other geolibertarian, who I have not run across before ( that I remember) but I did find faults with some of the other posts. Sorry for using the collective you all but I meant the various general posistions of libertarians, geolibertarians, mutualist, conservatives etc etc. I even find fault with Rothbard and Hoppe on some points

[Lex]

Sorry for using the collective you all but I meant the various general posistions of libertarians, geolibertarians, mutualist, conservatives etc etc. I even find fault with Rothbard and Hoppe on some points

Hmm... Please tell me how the position of libertarians differs from your own?

[Cotton]

Sorry for using the collective you all but I meant the various general posistions of libertarians, geolibertarians, mutualist, conservatives etc etc. I even find fault with Rothbard and Hoppe on some points

Hmm... Please tell me how the position of libertarians differs from your own?

By general posiition I mean majority of libertarians which I think come from a conservative mainstream background. Of course Mises.org, Lew Rockwell.com, The counter economics movement and the Left Libertarian blogs seem to get a lot of hits so maybe I'm wrong about a majority of libertarians.                                                                                                                                                 
     Where I differ from the mainstream conservative libertarians is with the government issued titles. I also think some squatting, some rent boycotts and some house payment boycotts some business lease payment boycotts, even some  employee and student takeovers may be valid, that can go along with posseion is nine tenths of the law just like a title holding resident owner with no house payment.

[Dreepa]

Who is this George anyway?

Can you name one good George (besides G Washington and Curious George)?

George III?
George H W Bush?
George W Bush?

[Cotton]

Avitar is the assessing company that caused such a ruckus in Berlin this year. Some houses increased in valuation 50% only a few months after being sold. Much incorrect information was reported, and many residents were surprised to see their assessments reported as being based on inspections, when no one from Avitar had ever been inside their homes.

The city lowered their tax rates, but the increased valuations meant a big tax bill for lots of people. Property tax assessments and adjustments are so arbitrary that they're ripe for abuse.

Kevin

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
There is an in depth study from Harvard that you can find on Randall O Toole's web site and I think the Heritage Foundations web site which shows how much zoning, growth plans and other regulation jack up the price of a quarter acre building site. The study compares 27 cities. O Toole calls it the zoning tax, San Franciso is the highest with a zoning tax over 600,000 dollars, Kansas City with around 2,000 dollars, most of the other cities run from 40,000 to over 100,000 dollars. ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ?Developed land is probally over valued by at least twice, maybe more what it would bring in a true free market. Although developed land only accounts for less than 7% of the land in the lower 48 I would almost bet it accounts for at least 70% of the total land value in the lower 48. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
?So land is probally artifically over valued by a lot in the US. In a free market average interest rate would probally drop a lot so that would bring ?back up free market land values some but ?I doubt the economic land rent would equal what it does today. ? ? ? One reason is the government owns ?a big percentage of land, The federal Reserve system, FDIC, Fannie Mae etc would end and so probally would the debt held by these federal systems and their members.

[polyanarch]

Who is this George anyway?

Can you name one good George (besides G Washington and Curious George)?

George III?
George H W Bush?
George W Bush?

I think Geo. Washington was an ass too.  And there are quite a few Penna farmers who would agree with me.

See:  Whiskey Rebellion

[Ron Helwig]

I think Geo. Washington was an ass too.  And there are quite a few Penna farmers who would agree with me.

See:  Whiskey Rebellion

Hear hear.

Curious George could be a pain too! 

George Gershwin?

[Ron Helwig]

Given the assumption that the tree is indeed wild, I see no problem with making a claim on the fallen apple. I do see a difference with making a claim on the land on which the tree is growing.

Why? The apple was not mine. it was wild. I did not grow it. I did not mix my labor with it. It is a thing of nature. God-given, as is the land. I make no distinctions.

(Now that I've caught up on the more important threads...)

Taking the fallen apple does not damage the land or change its value. That's the difference.

And remember, this is all based on the premise that government is needed; and therefore must be paid for. (Not that I necessarily accept that premise. Just saying that if you do...)

If you accept that premise, then the land value tax capped at 5% is at least defensible - unlike the sales, income, and property taxes or a land tax of over 5%.

[Dreepa]

Remember that is my apple.  It came from my tree!

(Actually the tree in my yard is a peach tree)  Who knew there were peach trees in NH?

[AlanM]

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

[AlanM]

Given the assumption that the tree is indeed wild, I see no problem with making a claim on the fallen apple. I do see a difference with making a claim on the land on which the tree is growing.

Why? The apple was not mine. it was wild. I did not grow it. I did not mix my labor with it. It is a thing of nature. God-given, as is the land. I make no distinctions.

(Now that I've caught up on the more important threads...)

Taking the fallen apple does not damage the land or change its value. That's the difference.

And remember, this is all based on the premise that government is needed; and therefore must be paid for. (Not that I necessarily accept that premise. Just saying that if you do...)

If you accept that premise, then the land value tax capped at 5% is at least defensible - unlike the sales, income, and property taxes or a land tax of over 5%.

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?

[Lex]

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

I think he was an Anarchist.

[tracysaboe]

Terry, I remember who you are now. I had you confused with somebody else. But I remember now.

Good to see you here.

Tracy