Second Vermont Republic revises principles...

[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?

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.

food is a necessity in order to continue to sustain your life that is grown via human labor...
occupying a 3D location is a prerequisite for human existence (it is one in the same) that is not created via human labor...

they are not the same...if I have access to the earth I can attempt to sustain my life (as you say) but no amount of human effort by definition can create what pre-exists human labor - the entire material universe (the natural commons).

[Lex]

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.

In that case do you agree that you are advocating collectivism (as opposed to commonism)?

[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

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...

Freedom does not have to be this complicated. Some of the language you use makes me cringe.

NH will be the FREE STATE because we will gradually implement in this order:

Less taxation of citizens, therefore
Less government control, therefore
More privatization

It all starts with the money. Start with that and the other stuff will fall into place. If you don't want the government to control you, don't give them the money to do it.

A note about Vt: When the voters of Burlington, Vermont, went to the polls on March 5, 1985, they overwhelmingly re-elected Mayor Bernard Sanders, an avowed socialist, for a third term.

Further Vermont is the only state to have had one of very few self-declared socialists elected to federal office in the United States in recent times, again Bernie Sanders.

[FrankChodorov]

Freedom does not have to be this complicated

it is not as simplistic as "taxation is theft"

Some of the language you use makes me cringe

the lack of intellectual rigor makes me cringe...

NH will be the FREE STATE because we will gradually implement in this order:

Less taxation of citizens, therefore
Less government control, therefore
More privatization

It all starts with the money. Start with that and the other stuff will fall into place. If you don't want the government to control you, don't give them the money to do it

I don't want to be controlled by either the state or corporations.

I want equal liberty!

[CNHT]

the lack of intellectual rigor makes me cringe...

You are not using intellectual rigor, you are using doublespeak.
And most taxation IS theft.

The "NEW CCF" indeed!

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

[FrankChodorov]

most taxation IS theft

when is it not in your opinion?

[CNHT]

most taxation IS theft

when is it not in your opinion?

Second Vermont Republic and Economic Democracy

Over the last week exciting things have been happening at the Second Vermont Republic, a group of Vermonters who want to restore commonsense to governance by restoring their status as an independent republic. A firm commitment to principles of economic democracy is shaping up left, right and center if the composition of their board is any guide at all. The Second Vermont Republic seems poised to organize what board member Bill Grennon calls a "non-partisan cooperative commonwealth league"....or what I fancy to be a "New CCF."

[Ron Helwig]

In that case do you agree that you are advocating collectivism (as opposed to commonism)?

Commonism (not a real word, but for the sake of argument...) is the same as collectivism, and I am advocating neither. I'm just saying that if you have to have a tax at all, I believe that a land value tax is better than the other forms of tax.

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

And so far, the only justification for ownership of land that I have heard of that even passes a "smell test" seems to be collectivist: that the government acts as a proxy for all the people in common, creating a "civil right" to own land and administering that right. I don't like it but haven't heard anything better.

[FrankChodorov]

In that case do you agree that you are advocating collectivism (as opposed to commonism)?

Commonism (not a real word, but for the sake of argument...) is the same as collectivism, and I am advocating neither. I'm just saying that if you have to have a tax at all, I believe that a land value tax is better than the other forms of tax.

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

And so far, the only justification for ownership of land that I have heard of that even passes a "smell test" seems to be collectivist: that the government acts as a proxy for all the people in common, creating a "civil right" to own land and administering that right. I don't like it but haven't heard anything better.

ownership in common and collective ownership are actually opposite.

one is an individual right operating on the principle of negative liberty the other is a group right based on the principle of positive liberty.

http://geolib.com/sullivan.dan/commonrights.html

One of the great tragedies of socialism has been the confounding of common rights (natural rights common to each individual) with collective rights (those that have been delegated to the community or its government). Common rights are inalienable, individual rights -- the very opposite of collective rights. Classical liberalism was based on the idea of common rights.
Free Speech: A Surviving Common Right

Freedom of speech is perhaps the best contemporary example of a common right, because it is still recognized, even among socialists, as an individual right. In public places, each individual has a right to express himself, limited only by the equal rights of others. No person, no majority of people, and no agency of the community has a right to interfere with a person speaking within his rights.

It is when people shout down others, or monopolize a public forum to prevent others from speaking, that they go beyond the limits of their rights, for at this point, their speech denies others the similar right to speak, which right the others equally possess.

The legitimate role of government being to protect these rights, government acts rightfully when it insures that all may speak, but acts wrongfully when it decides, or lets the majority decide, who may speak or what may be said. In doing so, it subverts a common right into a collective right, effectively destroying the rights of those individuals who are excluded.
Common Property vs. Collective Property

A parallel confusion exists between common property and collective property, and the classical liberal concept of common property has been all but obliterated. An open park perhaps comes closest to the idea of common property, for anyone has an equal right of access to the park. However, restrictions on what one may do in a park, to the degree that they are arbitrary, render the park a collective property.

A government maintenance building, on the other hand, is truly a collective property. Nobody is granted a right to trespass except on government-sanctioned business. This is another distinction blurred by socialists, who refer to "common property," but who propose to put that property under the control of governments, collectives, and majorities.

[Lex]

I believe Frank stated at one point that all the land is already owned. If that is the case then we no longer have the problem of who owns what as all land is already owned by someone.

[FrankChodorov]

I believe Frank stated at one point that all the land is already owned. If that is the case then we no longer have the problem of who owns what as all land is already owned by someone.

I have already stated that I believe individual ownership of land is the best system but that it must be conditional inorder to make the basis for property rights (labor) absolute and thus the right of self-ownership enforced for everyone not just the private landowners (which is nothing more than a state).

[Lex]

I believe Frank stated at one point that all the land is already owned. If that is the case then we no longer have the problem of who owns what as all land is already owned by someone.

I have already stated that I believe individual ownership of land is the best system but that it must be conditional inorder to make the basis for property rights (labor) absolute and thus the right of self-ownership enforced for everyone not just the private landowners (which is nothing more than a state).

Huh?

[FrankChodorov]

I believe Frank stated at one point that all the land is already owned. If that is the case then we no longer have the problem of who owns what as all land is already owned by someone.

I have already stated that I believe individual ownership of land is the best system but that it must be conditional inorder to make the basis for property rights (labor) absolute and thus the right of self-ownership enforced for everyone not just the private landowners (which is nothing more than a state).

Huh?

usually people who don't understand a point ask a clarifiying question...

Like "gee, I thought you were advocating common ownership of land?"

[Lex]

usually people who don't understand a point ask a clarifiying question...

There is nothing to clarify, your post didn't make ANY sense at all.

[FrankChodorov]

usually people who don't understand a point ask a clarifiying question...

There is nothing to clarify, your post didn't make ANY sense at all.

I believe in conditional private property rights in land ownership inorder to uphold absolute property right to labor of those being excluded.

the condition is this: once economic rent attaches to the location you occupy, you must share the full amount directly and equally (owned in common as an individual right) with your neighbors in a community.

what is so hard to understand?