Second Vermont Republic revises principles...

[FrankChodorov]

Includes a spat between myself and our resident socialist

the more interesting exchange is between me and David Friedman over his father's Milton's quote "In my opinion, the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument..."

socialism is generally thought of as the collective ownership of the means of production (land, labor, capital) - can you cite specifically on this forum where I have ever advocated the collective ownership of anything?

[FrankChodorov]

Neither is Mr. George, yet that hasn't stopped you.

I am making the case based on my own words, not his...

Since when

his, John Locke, classical liberals, French Physiocrats, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Leo Tolstoy, Albert Nock and Frank Chodorov's ideas...but my words to describe the ideas.

you are the one always busting my chops for making "appeals to authority"...

[Ron Helwig]

I still want to hear a moral justification for ownership of land in an anarchy. (and not "because I 'need' it to exist" - that one doesn't fly)

But the "I 'need' it." is the argument that the georgists use as well.

...

It is a philosophical debate and I think one that cannot be proven either way so I resort to practicality. And to me property taxes sound like a bad idea and not very practical to implement fairly.

I don't use the "I need it" argument for ownership of land, any more than I use it for, say, health care or a new car.

Property taxes are far more practical than most other taxes.
1) it is nearly impossible to avoid the tax - meaning a police state is not required
1a) a sales tax requires a police state in order to track down "black market" tax avoidance
1b) an income tax is a tax on the sale of labor, and requires a police state...
2) its burden is far more obvious to the taxpayer than a sales tax or a withheld income tax

If you have to have a tax, I far prefer a property tax over sales or income taxes. I prefer a land tax over a more general property tax, since the improvements to the land are the result of the owner's labor - unlike the land itself.

[FrankChodorov]

I don't use the "I need it" argument for ownership of land, any more than I use it for, say, health care or a new car.

there is no "need" involved...if you exist you occupy 3D space...

occupying 3D space is literally a prerequisite for existing!

[Ron Helwig]

I don't use the "I need it" argument for ownership of land, any more than I use it for, say, health care or a new car.

there is no "need" involved...if you exist you occupy 3D space...

occupying 3D space is literally a prerequisite for existing!

Just because you "need" something doesn't give you a right to it.

[FrankChodorov]

I don't use the "I need it" argument for ownership of land, any more than I use it for, say, health care or a new car.

there is no "need" involved...if you exist you occupy 3D space...

occupying 3D space is literally a prerequisite for existing!

Just because you "need" something doesn't give you a right to it.

do we not have a right to self-ownership as the fundamental tenet of libertarianism?

[CNHT]

Well bait and switch is a typical tactic.

This is where I see you fit in:

http://www.geocities.com/anarchocommie/nefac/index2.html

[CNHT]

But why would you want to be confederated with anybody. If this is truly an indipendence movement, why not be truly independent?

<Shakes head>

Tracy

Yah Tracy! Answer: Because they are shills for the new world order just as I have been saying.

http://www.geocities.com/anarchocommie/nefac/index2.html

[CNHT]

6. Equal Access.  We support equal access for all Vermont citizens to quality education, health care, housing, and employment.

Ah, socialism..................

Alan!    He is finally admitting it..the only way to *ensure* 'equal access' is for them to provide it to you, collectively.

http://www.geocities.com/anarchocommie/nefac/index2.html

[CNHT]

Just ambiguous enough, isn't it. OK, how will "equal access" be achieved?

Why taxation of course! 
http://www.geocities.com/anarchocommie/nefac/index2.html

[Ron Helwig]

I don't use the "I need it" argument for ownership of land, any more than I use it for, say, health care or a new car.

there is no "need" involved...if you exist you occupy 3D space...

occupying 3D space is literally a prerequisite for existing!

Just because you "need" something doesn't give you a right to it.

do we not have a right to self-ownership as the fundamental tenet of libertarianism?

You also need food to exist, does that give you the right to take it? A libertarian would say no. The same applies to any other need.

You do have the right to attempt to get the things you need - that is directly tied to self-ownership. Claiming you have the right to something just because you need it is not tied to self-ownership.

[CNHT]

Frank, I'm sure you have been asked this many times before but why do you hang out on this forum? We are obviously all completely against socialism and that is all you have been trying to promote here (albeit under different names). Just because you don't use the same terminology as other communists and socialists does not mean that you are not trying to spread the same concepts and ideas. There is no way to provide "equal" services for all without someone being forced to pay for it. You can establish the most elaborate freedom sounding version of property taxes you want but it's just too easy to see past your smoke and mirrors. If it's not a voluntary payment it's not going to fly, period, end of story. Do you understand that? You can call it economic rent or whatever the heck you want but as long as you are going to force people into your taxation system you will not have freedom and thus our support. 

Hooray Lexie! I said as much after I read the very first post from 'Frank'.

And have been saying it all along...all secessionist movements are not alike. Now if only people would be smart enough to stop promoting Vt Commons.

Again my general words of caution: Just because you agree on one item like the 'peace' thing, don't be co-opted into a whole ideology or movement just because of it!

[CNHT]

but it will be hard to argue with Mr. Heinrich since he is not here to defend his argument.

Neither is Mr. George, yet that hasn't stopped you.

[FrankChodorov]

Well bait and switch is a typical tactic.

This is where I see you fit in:

http://www.geocities.com/anarchocommie/nefac/index2.html

anarchism is broadly broken down into:

1. a collectivist wing - European based (Peter Kropotkin)
2. an individualist wing - American based (Josiah Warren and Benjamin Tucker, Spooner, Thoreau)

the main difference being the opposition to markets and money and thus a very narrow view of private property by advocating collective ownership of the means of production.

for instance the feminist Wendy McElroy considers herself an individualist anarchist from Canada...

here is her latest piece on intellectual property that cites Tucker and George
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/libdebates/ch6intpr.html

here is a piece on Benjamin Tucker:
http://www.zetetics.com/mac/tir1.htm

mutualism is part of the individualist anarchist tradition and refers to itself as free market, anti-capitalist...

[CNHT]

This is assinine. You have gone totally wacko Frank, or Bill, or whatever. So, Lex can't point to something written by someone other than himself to bolster his argument. You get to set all the rules, or so you think, as a means of avoiding questions you have no answer for. You are a phony Frank.

Woo -hoo! Go Alan!