Land rent ad infinitum, ad nauseum

[Lex]

Georgism is slavery plain and simple.

Lets say I purchased a plot of land and started to grow my own food on it becoming totally self sufficient. I no longer need to hold a job so I quit my job and enjoy my land. FrankChodorovs group of thugs come marching over to me demanding that I go back to work so that I can pay the property taxes. If I do not get a job to pay the tax I lose my land. So I have to work in order to live because I cannot live without land. Slavery.

[FrankChodorov]

Lets say I purchased a plot of land

first premise is wrong because there would be no purchase price to land only the sharing of economic rent if it is present.

so that I can pay the property taxes.

second premise is wrong - you are assuming there would be economic rent due whereas that has not been established

demanding that I go back to work

third premise is wrong - no need to demand anything other than a lien on your appreciating land value if economic rent has attached.

If I do not get a job to pay the tax I lose my land. So I have to work in order to live because I cannot live without land

fourth premise is wrong - a simple lien payable upon title transfer would suffice.

gee this has been fun...

[DC]

even in an anarchy like Iceland the economic rent (a tax in kind but not in name) attaches to all locations as two or more people naturally compete for access to scarce locations (beyond Locke's proviso)

In anarchy when you come on to peoples land demanding money you will be taken care of very quickly. If I remember correctly Locke ran off and hid in the Netherlands when things got tough and came back when other people made it safe for him.

as two or more people naturally compete for access to scarce locations

Two or more people are competing for land but the freeloader isn't offering anything to the transaction. They didn't cause the price go up because they didn't have the money to compete so they don't deserve any of the money.

[Dreepa]

Georgism is slavery plain and simple.

Lets say I purchased a plot of land and started to grow my own food on it becoming totally self sufficient. I no longer need to hold a job so I quit my job and enjoy my land. FrankChodorovs group of thugs come marching over to me demanding that I go back to work so that I can pay the property taxes. If I do not get a job to pay the tax I lose my land. So I have to work in order to live because I cannot live without land. Slavery.

This might be the best description I have read about Georgism.

Thanks Lex!

[FrankChodorov]

So I have to work in order to live because I cannot live without land

that is the exact point of our current land tenure system...thank you!

because you can not have a life without occupying space, someone always has a claim on your labor when all lands are legally occupied.

[FrankChodorov]

In anarchy when you come on to peoples land demanding money you will be taken care of very quickly.

in an anarchy where all lands are legally occupied wherever you exist there will be people with guns demanding money from you...

They didn't cause the price go up because they didn't have the money to compete so they don't deserve any of the money.

since inorder to exist you must occupy space it matters not a whit if you have no money...

[DC]

In anarchy when you come on to peoples land demanding money you will be taken care of very quickly.

in an anarchy where all lands are legally occupied wherever you exist there will be people with guns demanding money from you...

Not on my land. They will have to offer something in exchange.

They didn't cause the price go up because they didn't have the money to compete so they don't deserve any of the money.

since inorder to exist you must occupy space it matters not a whit if you have no money...

They exist or you wouldn't be talking about them. They didn't cause they price to go up because they couldn't offer anything.

[Lex]

since inorder to exist you must occupy space it matters not a whit if you have no money...

You have several choices: You can offer someone something for a piece of land (modern real estate), you can go over to someone elses land and kill/force them off (Native Americans getting kicked off/killed) or if you found land that nobody seemed to be using you can claim it and defend it. Otherwise you are shit out of luck and you have no choice but to implode.

Just as "rights" only exist to the point where you are willing to defend them -- the right to not be harmed is only as effective as your gun or the gun of your protection organization. Same goes for property, you only really own property if you are willing to defend it. Even today despite paying property tax you can lose your property through eminent domain, so in the end it always comes down to the physical world and your ability to use a gun or hire someone to use a gun for you.

Georgism is just a retarded mindset that defies the way human interaction works in the real world. Nobody has any given rights, especially to land.

[Ron Helwig]

Just as "rights" only exist to the point where you are willing to defend them -- the right to not be harmed is only as effective as your gun or the gun of your protection organization. Same goes for property, you only really own property if you are willing to defend it. Even today despite paying property tax you can lose your property through eminent domain, so in the end it always comes done to the physical world and your ability to use a gun or hire someone to use a gun for you.

Georgism is just a retarded mindset that defies the way human interaction works in the real world. Nobody has any given rights, especially to land.

It sounds like you don't believe that there are inherent rights.

I believe that there are inherent rights, but that sometimes those rights get violated.

[CNHT]

Lex, don't bother with 'Frank', er Bill Grennon, as he has been OUTED as an instrument of the New World Order...

To wit I offer you his involvement in not only the Green party, and the DFCNH, but he is also part of the push by the SVR  to make the Northeast Corner of the Continent one nation ala the agenda of the UN. (The UN would seek to divide the world into 8 sections, New Acadia being one.)

Read on:

COMMENTAIRES
The ultimate goal of the SVR is to form a confederation of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine with the Canadian Maritimes and possibly Quebec to form a new nation about the size of Denmark called "New Acadia"

In the upcoming February edition of the Vermont Commons on economics we will be publishing a part of Gar Alperovitz book on the Pluralistic Commonwealth called: "America Beyond Capitalism"..We need to start reaching out to our Canadian counterparts in the Maritimes who have much more extensive experience with cooperative economics.

Bill Grennon
SVR, board member
Vermont Commons, contributing editor
--end--

Beyond capitalism eh???

Then we have more evidence here:

http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=21

http://www.nhgreens.org/cgi-bin/YaWPS/forum.cgi?op=view_thread;board=lakes;thread=32

http://www.ecodema.org/archives/000138.html

[Lex]

It sounds like you don't believe that there are inherent rights.

I believe that there are inherent rights, but that sometimes those rights get violated.

What is a right then?

[Pat McCotter]

a simple lien payable upon title transfer would suffice.

So if a community held their property for life and passed it to their children after they died the children would have to pay your rent? Even if they have been living on the land and supporting their lives with the fruit of that land?

[FrankChodorov]

So if a community held their property for life and passed it to their children after they died the children would have to pay your rent?

do you mean parent?

Even if they have been living on the land and supporting their lives with the fruit of that land?

define "fruit" in the context you are using it...

[CNHT]

a simple lien payable upon title transfer would suffice.

So if a community held their property for life and passed it to their children after they died the children would have to pay your rent? Even if they have been living on the land and supporting their lives with the fruit of that land?

Pat don't waste your time arguing with this guy because he is not really for a 'free' anything. He is admittedly an anti-capitalist, and a statist, (secede TO a 'New Acadia'? The UN would love that! If you are going to secede you don't secede into yet a more socialistic nanny state).

He has admitted he would want to go on air and try to make fools out of talk show hosts who are known to be anti-tax, and for less gov't and more freedom, so what does that tell you? He must be pro-tax and pro-gov't, in the name of protection of the 'common' good.

He can't show me the law that states NH owns the water in the 'public trust' that runs under your land.

[FrankChodorov]

he is not really for a 'free' anything

I am for EQUAL freedom...

He is admittedly an anti-capitalist, and a statist

sorry but you can't have capitalism without the state's privilege granting ability that protects economic rents, interests, and profits.

thus I am for a free market that is anti-capitalist...in other words I want to rid the system of privileges that deny EQUAL freedom just as the individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker & Josiah Warren did at the tun of the 19th century as the inheritors of classical liberalism - who by the way were on the left opposed to the monarchists on the right.

If you are going to secede you don't secede into yet a more socialistic nanny state

hello, earth to Jane...there is no "New Acadia" - that is the proposed new nation that would form from a CONFEDERATION of independent VT, NH, Maine and the Canadian Maritimes based on Jefferson's ward republic ideal as mostly autonomous city states (there is a proposed group of SVR and FSP jointly working on a proposal for Killington that would grant this type of status within VT) and a principle known in catholic distibutism as "subsidiarity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

He has admitted he would want to go on air and try to make fools out of talk show hosts who are known to be anti-tax, and for less gov't and more freedom, so what does that tell you?

I believe you were the one who said they would make a fool out of me...I accept your challenge!

call my agent to book me on the show whenever you like...

He must be pro-tax and pro-gov't, in the name of protection of the 'common' good.

even in an anarchy (no government) the economic rent (a tax in kind but not in name) collected by the landowner violates the self-ownership rights of those being excluded.

He can't show me the law that states NH owns the water in the 'public trust' that runs under your land.

you never asked me until now...are you asking me to show you the law?

if I show it to you will you book me on your show?