Property Taxes are Communism

[tracysaboe]

I've denied the "ownership" of labor theory of ownership for years now, so that's settled.


In fact it was Adam's labor theory of ownership which lead Marx to believe in his labor theory of value.

If you own something that you labor on -- it's because you already own it. Labor is not neccessary or sufficient for ownership.

TRacy

[Caleb]

You can reject it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the right to labor extends from self-ownership.  You cannot have self-ownership of land, because you did not produce it.  You can purchase the land with the results of your labor, but what you purchase is actually a bundle of rights: 1) use 2) possession  3) exclusion 4) transferability. 

The fifth and final portion of the bundle is the economic rent, which attaches to the unimproved land value, per Locke's proviso.  As a Christian, Tracey, you should be familiar with Tolstoy ... what was Tolstoy's view of land?

What I'm saying is that the economic rent does not accrue to government, but is paid to your neighbors because their labor has resulted in the increase in your land value - hence, the attachment of the economic rent only to the unimproved land value, (as opposed to the improved land value, which is a direct result of your own labor.)

[Caleb]

generally a communist believes in the collective ownership of the means of production (land, labor, capital)

whereas I believe:

1. that both the products of labor (wealth) and the return on labor (wages) plus capital (stored labor as wealth) and the return on capital (profit/interest) are the absolute property rights of individuals.

2. that ownership of natural resources (including land) is not a single right but rather a bundle of rights that include:

a. use
b. possession
c. exclusion
d. transferability
e. economic rent

that all natural resources start out as owned in common (no human labor creates them) where we all have an INDIVIDUAL equal access opportunity right to freely access/use and are JUSTLY enclosed as individual private property so long as the exclusive access/use does not infringe on the equal rights of others to the same.

therefore inorder to protect the absolute labor-based property rights of those being excluded, the bundled ownership right to the economic rent which only appears beyond Locke's proviso and defines the extent of the infringement described above, MUST remain owned in common as an INDIVIDUAL equal access opportunity right.

collective rights are group rights...
common rights are individual rights...

please point out the flaws in reasoning if you can!

[Lex]

This is a joke right?

[Caleb]

you could only think its a joke because you are not understanding:

1. the philosophical difference between collective and common ownership
2. that property rights are based on labor as the natural extension of self-ownership
3. that the father of classical liberal property rights, John Locke, made ownership of land conditional
4. that individual common rights like freedom of speech are core to the foundational principles of our constitutional republic and define negative liberty
5. that libertarians fundamental principle of self-ownership is a fraud because of the land tenure system they support

if all land is legally claimed and inorder to exist you must occupy space then yes you have a choice which contract to negotiate with which landowner to buy or lease from or be lucky enough to be gifted a place to sleep but you have no choice NOT to pay someone or be gifted a place to sleep.

therefore you either have to:

1. disclaim a right to self-ownership as the fundamental tenet of libertarianism because you are born with rights - they don't have to be purchased or gifted.

or

2. agree that force is justified to violate property rights to labor.

which is it - you can't have it both ways?

the state has a fiduciary responsibility to protect and preserve the common asset.

at some time in the future as populations and demands continue to rise while supply is fixed there will inevitably come a time inwhich use will have to be limited to only the sustainable yield (replentishment rate).

prior to this point an individual's access /use does not infringe (materially harm) anyone else (called Locke's proviso)...

how do you fairly distribute only the sustainable yield?

sell permits for that amount (or meter people's use) and distribute the collected money (called economic rent) to all the owners of the common asset equally.

if you do not pay for what you take your use in effect levies a tax on those you exclude because you are materially harming their individual common interests.

the state acts rightfully when it FORCES you to cease and desist on the infringement you create on other individual's equal access opportunity rights.
In his critique of Spencer in his book: "A Perplexed Philosopher", George made a clear distinction between common rights and collective rights.

excerpt:
    The fact is, that without noticing the change, Mr. Spencer has dropped the idea of equal rights to land, and taken up in its stead a different idea -- that of joint rights to land. That there is a difference may be seen at once. For joint rights may be and often are unequal rights.

    The matter is an important one, as it is the source of a great deal of popular confusion. Let me, therefore, explain it fully.

    When men have equal rights to a thing, as for instance, to the rooms and appurtenances of a club of which they are members, each has a right to use all or any part of the thing that no other one of them is using. It is only where there is use or some indication of use by one of the others that even politeness dictates such a phrase as "Allow me!" or "If you please!"

    But where men have joint rights to a thing, as for instance, to a sum of money held to their joint credit, then the consent of all the others is required for the use of the thing or of any part of it, by any one of them.

    Now, the rights of men to the use of land are not joint rights: they are equal rights.

    Were there only one man on earth, he would have a right to the use of the whole earth or any part of the earth.

    When there is more than one man on earth, the right to the use of land that any one of them would have, were he alone, is not abrogated: it is only limited. The right of each to the use of land is still a direct, original right, which he holds of himself, and not by the gift or consent of the others; but it has become limited by the similar rights of the others, and is therefore an equal right. His right to use the earth still continues; but it has become, by reason of this limitation, not an absolute right to use any part of the earth, but (1) an absolute right to use any part of the earth as to which his use does not conflict with the equal rights of others (i.e., which no one else wants to use at the same time), and (2) a coequal right to the use of any part of the earth which he and others may want to use at the same time.

    It is, thus, only where two or more men want to use the same land at the same time that equal rights to the use of land come in conflict, and the adjustment of society becomes necessary.

[Lex]

Actually, does anyone have any good articles about land from either lewrockwell or the mises institute or someone else in the same vein?

[AlanM]

5. that libertarians fundamental principle of self-ownership is a fraud because of the land tenure system they support

if all land is legally claimed and inorder to exist you must occupy space then yes you have a choice which contract to negotiate with which landowner to buy or lease from or be lucky enough to be gifted a place to sleep but you have no choice NOT to pay someone or be gifted a place to sleep.

Your fallacy is here. you have no RIGHT to occupy free space. Prove to me, (which you haven't done), that self-ownership requires the right to space not gifted or bought or leased. You merely take this as a premise, but you don't prove it.

[KBCraig]

Oh, no! "They" have taken Caleb!

[Lloyd Danforth]

They will probably return him

[Pat K]

Tell them we want a thousand dollars a pound to take him back.

[cathleeninnh]

The ransom of redchief?

Cathleen

[Caleb]

Oh, no! "They" have taken Caleb!

No.  Not really. 

I was having a little fun at Ian's expense.  He said that Frank Chodorov was not allowed to post ... He didn't say that I wasn't allowed to cut and paste Frank's comments, so that he could join the discussion "in spirit". 

What I will say is this, because its something I think maybe we all need to think about more closely. (I include myself.)

Behind these screen names are real people.  When you say something about a screen name, maybe it seems less real to you because you type it, not say it and the person isn't physically in front of you:  but that doesn't mean it doesn't affect the real live person behind the mask.

Do I agree with Frank about Land?  No.  Or maybe.  Or I'm not sure.  I don't really understand what he's talking about completely.  It's intriguing anyway.  I've asked him a few questions, but I honestly have been intellectually lazy in even making an attempt to figure out what he believes.

Why have I been intellectually lazy?  Probably because land is far less important to me than stopping federal tyranny.  It's not where my focus is.  We all have our different focuses, things that are more important to us than they are to other people. 

If I mention immigration, I can count on Jane chipping in.

Talk about land ... and Frank Chodorov will have more than a lot to say.

Mention Christ, and you'll get me going.

Mention Beer, and there you'll find PatK.

Post a 9-11 "conspiracy" thread, and KBCraig will be sure to give his $0.02.  So will Tunga, but it will be unintelligible. 

Mention emailing your Senators and Dada will be there telling you about the five hundred people he's emailed, as well as the 35 discussion groups, making you feel like crap because you know in your heart you could have been doing the same thing, but you were playing Freecell.

My point is, we all have our focus.  Maybe toleration of foibles and less harsh rhetoric is in order.

Caleb

[Pat K]

Yeah! OH yeah! well kiss my ass !

[Pat K]

Just kidding.

[tracysaboe]

Except that Billg (notGates), Greenbacks, Hankster, Frank, whatever new handle he wants to use next time he gets kicked out of a forum and needs to come back (he's been kick-ed out of this one at least once)

He's actively working against us. We can agree to disagree about whether to use political means or whatever. But he's actively telling people that Property taxes are good and noble and that they're neccessary.

That makes him in direct opposition to our goals.

Tracy