Georgism
 

I've invited someone from another board to come in here to discuss Georgism.

They label themselves as a follower of "classic liberalism" and claim Georgism supports their beliefs. Of course they are full of crap.

For those of you who don't know, Georgists stupidly try to draw an imaginary line of separation between property that is created by the labor of people and that which isn't. They think legitimate land OWNERS who enjoy increased property value due to changes in their area or who speculate and invest in property are thieves and they should give their profits to some imaginary entity known as "the community" as though a "community" had rights, and those rights were above those of individuals.

The simple and undeniable truth is that classic liberalism (libertarianism) holds property ownership (regardless of how the property was created) as the most sacred of all rights because property ownership is where our rights stem from.

Georgism is nothing more than socialism which means it's the exact opposite of libertarianism and therefore the exact opposite of freedom itself.

Radar!

While you're here... your thoughts on the CA recall? Maybe start a new thread about it?

I'm for it.

Well, if they do come, I look forward to an unbiased description. It does seem interesting.

They want to duke it out on another forum. I invited them here. But if they come, their opinion will hardly be unbiased as a follower of that philosophy.

This idiot calls himself a geo-libertarian-green. That's as stupid as the retards who call themselves libertarian-socialists. Libertarianism and socialism are exact opposites.

He can call himself a purpleheaded pud pounder for all I care. The facts speak for themselves and there is no distinction between owning property created by nature and property created by the labor of mankind. This is true in all forms of libertarianism including "classic liberalism"

Are you gonna vote for that Ned Roscoe?

Why is it that, when describing something strange and foreign, people often prefix it with the word 'that'?

The community has no rights?

Do you support any form of social organization?

"Both ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry....Ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them." -- Adam Smith

Yes.

Sure, it's nice to see clubs, bowling leagues, etc. But a group of individuals has no more rights than a single individual whether they call themselves a club, a town, a city, a county, a state, or a federal government.

One way to look at it might be as a group of people pooling a portion of their rights. It is difficult to wrap your mind around the rights of all of the people in, say, the Ravenna District. It is easier to perceive all of their rights as a conglomeration: the rights of the Ravenna District. In this way, their rights together appear almost as large as they ought to, and hence are more difficult to trample.

If you say: the Ravenna District has no rights, but the people in it do have rights, it is easier to trample their rights. It is too difficult to account for the rights of all of the people living in the Ravenna District seperately.

btw: clever nick, Adan

do we not all have equall access rights to air?

We have a right to air, but hold no ownership of it. We have no right to land and aren't entitled to a single inch of it if we don't earn it.

No, we clearly do not all have equal access rights to air. Only an idiot who doesn't understand that not all air is equal would think that. Does someone living on a river that is buried in trash and pollutants have equal access to water as someone living on a clean lake? Does someone who lives in Mexico City have equal access to air as someone living in Tibet? Does someone working day by day deep in an old corporate office have equal access to air as someone skiing down the fresh powder slopes of Schwietzer Mountain?

Hell no!


--
Radar, are you taking the opposite line now that you did in your original post?

Here's an idea for all you liberal types out there: If you don't own property, you don't get to vote on any bond issue that will raise property taxes.

I am sick to death of having a bunch of apartment dwellers vote to raise property taxes because they don't think it's going to effect them. And then they get upset when their rent goes up!
Nothing like an informed voter!

Maggie M...

affect. :)

      Since, as you point out, it does affect them, why shouldn't they vote?

      Hi Radar! How ya been?       Quick clarification here, they have the rights of a groups worth of votes, as in each individal can combine his rights with others to greater effect. For instance the "Free State" plan you guys had. It used numbers to get what you wanted, as individuals. Which is fine. I don't think you were suggesting otherwise here, it just read funny.

<<I am sick to death of having a bunch of apartment dwellers vote to raise property taxes because they don't think it's going to effect them. And then they get upset when their rent goes up!>>

Hate to burst your little Magpie bubble there but increases to the land portion of your property tax doesn't result in an increase in rent...

"A tax on rent falls wholly on the landlord. There are no means by which he can shift the burden upon any one else." John Stuart Mills

Unless of course you want to argue with John Stuart Mills - you don't do you?

Is our right to air not equal?

or is there one class more equal than others?

do we not hold ownership rights because individuals do not make the air?

or is it because we can't easily divide it?

Considering all these conditions above wouldn't it make sense to say we all have an inalienable right to equal access to air in it's purist form which is part of the commons and that this right is based on our equal right to life. Plus, that no one has the right to take more than their share (in the form of pollution) because by breathing in the pollution that would deny someone their equal access rights to air in it's unaltered state?

No, I'm not. But one does have the right to breathe. And nobody owns the air we breathe. I didn't say "everybody owns the air we breathe" I said NOBODY owns it. People do own air though and airspace. If you think you can use any air you want, please get in a private plane and fly over the whitehouse, the pentagon, China, or the taj majal.


There are no "commons". Other than the idiots who think socialism is a good idea, the vast majority of the world knows that PRIVATE ownership represents freedom while "common ownership" represents oppression, always has and always will.

You aren't entitled to a "share" of air. You take what you can breathe and that's it. And for the record pollution isn't taking someone's right to "air in it's unaltered state". It is trespassing, just like when you walk onto someone else's land because you think it belongs to everyone. Except in the case of land you get shot rather than fined.

I'm not arguing with John Mills. I'm arguing with you. What was described in the thread was a tax on property. John Mills is describing a tax on rent. He might be taking a different perspective, anyway -- I don't know.

Technically, the burden of a tax on rent would be on the landlord, but the landlord pays with money from the tenants. So when taxes go up, rent goes up, because the rent is where the landlord gets the money to pay the tax.


--
Radar: "we have no right to land, land must be earned
Torrere: Oh. I get what you're saying now. Oops.

If y'all want to debate Georgism here you might want to define it for the masses and tell the back story.

Ok.

Some idiot named Henry George who falsely claimed to be a classic liberal decided to make up an ignorant and backward philosophy for theives who want to reach into your pocket to steal from you while they accuse you of being a theif. It's a slap in the face of anyone who believes in true freedom, it amounts to force, it's totally un-libertarian and against the most basic premise in classic liberalism of the non-initiation of force. They draw a false and imaginary line between property created in nature and that created by the labor of mankind as though the ownership of these types of property were somehow different.

Here's a more articulate description from another author...


http://www.paulbirch.net/CritiqueOfGeorgism.html

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Okay, from what I've seen Georgism sounds like crap. However in interest of fair time does anyone have a link to the Georgist view point from their side?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I'd like to hear someone talk about the upside. This is only fair since we've not heard aything good about them yet. I don't think an opinion should be formed untill they've had their say.

I'll argue with Mills, if he'll come on this board to debate. A tax on rent is like any sales tax; those who see the direct effects are the buyers (renters), not the sellers (landlords), as the tax will be passed directly on to the tenants.

The reason why is:

1. because presumably the landlord is already charging market rates so what are they going to raise it to?

2. shifting rents off of buildings and on to land will incent such a building boom of housing concentrated in the urban core that vacancy rates will soar and rents will drop like a rock.

Next!

neo-libertarians

read it and weep...

Englisch, bitte.

Once you're out of a lease, the rent can be raised. Most people will put up with a minor raise (10%?) as to skip the hassle and expense of moving. Raising the rent on a tenant to cover taxes is hardly impossible.

Under what principle? - spell it out exactly...

How do you say "contradiction"?

excuse me there Mr. Radar but I am infact arguing that we SHOULD assign ownership rights to air. Since you can't divide it up and since it is none transferable (can't live without) I am going to make the OUTRAGEOUSLY socialistic statement that individuals (not corporations) all own it equally in common with equal access shares.

So which side are you on?...w/the commies - no ownership rights where everyone is free to use it as a dump!

or the classical liberals?

well who is enforcing that rule?

for the record can you tell me exactly who I am to sue for tresspassing when someone's pollution in the air that my son breathes causes him to get asthma?

and can you cite one court case that similiarly shows the successful prosecution of a tresspassing case involving air pollution? This is a lot of hot air - and the reason why they are getting away with it is exactly because we have not asserted our common access rights to air!

By assigning individual, inalienable, equal access rights to air we can demand equal compensation from polluters for over using the commons. This is a much philosophically consistent position and workable solution to pollution then after the fact legal adjudication...

The Sky Trust

It is if you can move to a lower cost unit.

If you live in a city and your rent is 1000 an the vacancy rate is 3% you have no choice but to accept. But if you live in a city with a constant 20% housing vacancy rate you can move virtually anywhere as my #2 answer above states.

Once again you are showing what an ass you are.

There are no "common rights". There never have been and never will be. There are only individual rights, period.

People are born with the right to life which means you can breathe. Nobody can make it against the law for you to breathe. But you are not entitled to take from others based on your needs and you're not entitled to the earnings of others because a particular resource has become more scarce.

If you own land and someone pollutes on it a crime has been committed. If they pollute their own land no crime has been committed unless they pollute the water table and it gets onto your land. The same is true of all forms of pollution. The reason you haven't seen a case prosecuted is because the largest polluter on earth (The US government) won't allow themselves to be prosecuted because they claim to have immunity.

That's a mighty big if. And it's ignoring the hassle of moving. You don't think some people would trade that for an extra, say, eighty bucks a month?

(Hint: they will. I know, 'cause we own a number of houses, and as costs go up, so must the rent. And guess what? People pay it!)

Listen up - I am talking about assigning individual rights...that is what you want - isn't it?

or are you going to contradict yourself again?


Exactly - without assigning individual, inalienable, equal access rights for all how are going to determine who is taking more for their needs robbing me of mine?

isn't it better in your perfect little adjudication world to spell it out so rights aren't trampled?

Exactly - you are suggesting stealing from those who creates the extrinsic value that naturally occurs under monopoly conditions, not me!

Ok, I am still waiting to hear about how your adjudication system for air pollution will specifically help my son's asthma condition...let's start with the basics shall we - who am I going to sue?

Typical macho flash response to throw a little red meat into the pen of lions to help you defend an untenable position...

Why, if the hassles are simply pack up your stuff and move to any pick of similiar apts. within walking distance?

which I bet are not the circumstances that your serfs find themselves - correct?

Going to another appartement nearby does not help you avoid tax because the tax applies to all landlords (and hence all tenants) within the region that the tax is imposed.

Besides, if rent went up a bit it would probably be easier for me to stay here than it would be to find another appartement nearby and move there.

I just want to say that I have read this entire post now 3 times. I'm still so confused that it is making my head hurt. I guess I just don't get it. So - even though the new post light keeps grabbing my eye - I'm moving on........

So, in other words, Radar wanted to debate you on this esoteric minutae of political philosophy, and chose here to be the place, yet both of you refuse to state your basic definitions for the rest of us, insisting that we do a lot of complicated reading first?

I don't get it.

I never contradicted myself in the first place. You failed in your last attempt to point out a contradiction because there was none. Try again.

You don't. You don't need to determine who is using more air. And if someone is using all the land and you have none, they are not robbing you of anything, nor are you being robbed if someone else breathes more than you. Nor are you being robbed if someone puts air in bottles. Nor are you being robbed if someone pollutes the air. This is the base level fallacy in your poor excuse for logic.

You don't measure how much air each person gets, not only because it's impossible and impractical, but also because it's just plain stupid. You do measure land though and you are not entitled to any land or any compensation for land you don't own because land has become more scarce. If you want land, work for it and get it while the getting is good or be left out in the cold.

Get this through your thick skull and into your empty head...YOUR RIGHTS ARE NOT BEING TRAMPLED!!! at least in terms of this discussion. You don't have a right to land. You don't have a right to a certain amount of air. You don't have a right to be compensated for land being more scarce. YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE RIGHTS SO THEY AREN'T BEING TRAMPLED ON!!

And for the record, yes, it is better living in a world of reality than the fantasy world you suggest. Your desire to be a victim has left you devoid of logic.

Wrong again. The land owner isn't STEALING from anyone. Even if one person owned 80% of all the land mass on earth and everyone else on earth had to share the other 20%, he wouldn't be stealing. That is a retarded notion put forth by idiots.

Well, given the fact that you're not born with the right to have air that is free from pollution, you really would have a hard time suing anyone. But let's say you lived next door to a factory that was spewing poisons into the air. You could sue them when your son got sick and they'd most likely settle out of court to get you to shut up. Your kid would get treatment. Although if I were a parent who loved my kid, I'd move somewhere else. But what should I expect from you...an irresponsible, thief who attempts to justify their robbery by telling lies and making false claims that others are thieves for not allowing you to rob them.

Typical moronic response to a cogent, intelligent, reasonable and rational argument that you can't refute. My position has been defended perfectly. Yours has no defense. Your logic is circular and flawed, your arguments have no merit, and your philosophy is a joke.

I thought this was a more appropriate forum than the FSP site. Also I wanted to hear from the others in here. I have given you a link to a site that clearly defines and describes georgism and the faults with it. I'll try to give you the readers digest version.

The followers of Henry George (Georgists) are socialists who lie and claim to be classic liberalists (libertarians) and think that land belongs to "EVERYONE". They think they are born with the entitlement to land and if someone buys a lot of land, land becomes more scarce so they think they are entitled to be compensated (through robbery) because land has become more expensive due to available land becoming more scarce (the law of supply and demand). There are many flavors of this extremely flawed and ignorant philosophy but they basically range from socialism to hard-core communism.

There have been a number of ignorant people who have championed this philosophy such as the Adam Smith whom this idiot has named himself after.

I hope this has cleared things up. I don't think I can take it below the elementary level.

C'mon Radar, you brought him here to make yourself look rational and reasonable, didn't you. Got to hand it to you, it worked. This guy is really unbelievable.:beer:

Smitty, did Radar tell you of his history here?

I wonder if Radar would have supported the settlers taking the land that the natives lived on in the 1800s.

It wasnt taking the land the natives lived on, it was assigning them the right to selected lands.:p

I can see this is going nowhere fast!

ok children, let's try a different angle with some role playing...

question:Now Radar let's start with you - who are the original classical liberals?

answer: why - The French Physiocrats in response to that awful mercantile system...

question: And why do you say that Radar?

answer: because they were the first to use the word laissez-faire which in english means "leave alone"

laissez-faire

Very good Radar you may have a cookie now!

question: and what does Physiocrat actually mean in English?

answer: “rule of nature” because they believed the inherent natural order governing society was based on land and its natural products as the only true form of wealth.

Physiocrat

Oui Oui, another right answer Radar - my you have been reading your homework - good boy...now, one last question before you run off to the bathroom to stop all that wiggling around in your seat.

question: Here is the 64 million dollar question mon petit garcon. If you get it right you then achieve the privilege of calling yourself a "geo-libertarian"and the kids will no longer tease you out in the schoolyard by calling you a "neo-libertarian"...ready?

answer: Oh boy I can't wait but I hope I don't piss in my pants trying to figure out a way to remain ignorant like the rest of my "neo-libertarian" pals on the playground.

question:Radar, what is the significance of the term "l'impot unique"

answer:hmmm...let me think (as he looks outside to his pals in the schoolyard) and then yells out "the theory that ALL TAXATION IS THEFT - long live the Neo-Libs!" (as he runs out of the room with a huge wet stain on the front of his pants)

Teacher to the rest of the class: I am afraid that you have just witnessed another case of "Rothbarditis" where someone's dogma overcomes their reason.

The real answer is The Physiocrats advocated the impot unique to make the landowners of France pay for the expenses of the sovereign thus avoiding the onerous taxation of the peasants, workers, and cultivators of land. It was to be a levy on the value of land exclusive of improvements such as crops, houses, barns, fertilization- as well as the wealth produced by labor and capital utilizing land, the source of all wealth.

There is a paradox in the concept of the "single tax." In form, it may appear as another type of tax but, in substance, it is a taking by the community of that value exclusively created by the community since the genesis of ground rent is a) population combined with b)production. Thus, the landowner qua landowner is a parasite on production.

L'Impot Unique

Poor Radar has choosen the false comfort of his neo-libertarian "schoolyard pals" rather than standing with historical facts - the original classical liberal Geo-libertarians...

End of class - dismissed!

As long as you're not referring to us as the "schoolyard pals"...he's no pal of ours.

Since the Empire State Building sits on the same size plot of land as my house we should pay the same taxes. Oh sure, that's a good idea.:rolleyes:

You decide for yourself...are you an original classical liberal, geo-libertarian or one of the fraudulent neo-libertarian?

I am what is best described as a sycamore liberal. Yep, that works.

No pal - but if the two plots were the same size & side by side in the NYC location of the Empire State Building you would. Now you as the homeowner would get killed based on the site valuation of that particular location (as you should) because you are under-utilizing your land. But the Empire State Building pays no taxes on the building (fruits of someones labor)rent it collects and easily affords the site valuation and makes a nice profit tax free...

get it now?

Good then as a card carrying member of the Green Party you won't mind my telling you to go hug a tree!

Who said I was a card carrying member of the Green Party?

Now we're getting somewhere! OK, who sets the valuation of the land, by what method?

Not you - me, pal

Buyers and sellers in the free market pal, every heard of it?

Some kind of laissez-faire political economists started that term many years ago...I think they were called Physiocrats one of which was Adam Smith. Hmmm sems to me somewhere else there is a posting on this topic.

Adam Smith

Oh boy...

can anyone here believe a self-described "green" is giving a lecture on the "free market" to a guy who claims to be a "libertarian" granted of the "neo" flavored but...

what is the world of ours coming to?

on second thought - is it our world?

Not the value of the land; the valuation. Who decides how much the land is worth FOR TAX PURPOSES?

Can I buy the land under the Empire State Building for $1 in a sweetheart deal or structured deal and thus have it valued at $1 for tax purposes?

Man! These original handles are killing me!

I am going to make this real simple for my first graders...

Ok class repeat after me:

Buyer - how much do you want to sell that land under the Empire State Building for?

Seller - two billion dollars

Buyer - too high for my pocketbook but you have just set your land valuation

Class - that is called the free market. The buyer (who just happens to be a private tax assessor) ask the seller what he wants for the land under the building. If the buyer thinks it is too high he sends him a land valuation bill. If the buyer thinks it is too low he buys it.

see this way everyone is happy (no force no fraud) and did you notice that there are no gov't agents snooping around?

good, because that scares the beejeezes out of the those neo-libertarians!

Type slower so I get it: why does the landowner have to set a selling price at all? If they set that price, and someone agrees to it, are they then obligated to sell?