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?
While you're here... your thoughts on the CA recall?
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?
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"
"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
Are you gonna vote for that Ned Roscoe?
Yes.
Do you support any form of social organization?
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...
From Ole Miss:
If you don't own property, you don't get to vote on any bond issue that will raise property taxes.
Since, as you point out, it does affect them, why shouldn't they vote?
Hi Radar! How ya been?
From Radar:
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.
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?
Originally posted by Radar
We have a right to air, but hold no ownership of it.
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?
Radar, are you taking the opposite line now that you did in your original post?
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.
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?
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...
Georgists, who take their name from Henry George, a nineteenth century physiocrat, believe that the ownership or use of land should be taxed. Most of them reject all other forms of taxation, so they are also known as Single Taxers. They do not believe that buildings or other improvements added by the landholder should be taxed — only the "unimproved" land.
There are many versions of Georgism, ranging from rhetorical formulations barely distinguishable from communism, to voluntary market-based arrangements sometimes described as geo-libertarian. It is difficult to get a clear picture of Georgist doctrine, because its apologists tend to slide illegitimately from one version to another logically incompatible one, according to the exigencies of the argument. We may charitably assume that this is because they often lack a sufficiently precise or coherent understanding of their own beliefs and proposals. Readers who seek to debate with Georgists should beware of this propensity (a very human failing which Georgists are by no means alone in falling prey to).
http://www.paulbirch.net/CritiqueOfGeorgism.html 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?
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.
Originally posted by AdanSmith
"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?
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.
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!
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?
neo-libertarians
read it and weep...
Originally posted by AdanSmith
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.
Englisch, bitte.
Originally posted by AdanSmith
1. because presumably the landlord is already charging market rates so what are they going to raise it to?
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.
one does have the right to breathe
Under what principle? - spell it out exactly...
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.
How do you say "contradiction"?
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.
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?
You take what you can breathe and that's it
well who is enforcing that rule?
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.
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 TrustRaising the rent on a tenant to cover taxes is hardly impossible
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.
Under what principle? - spell it out exactly...
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.
Originally posted by AdanSmith
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.
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!)
There are only individual rights, period
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?
Nobody can make it against the law for you to breathe. But you are not entitled to take from others based on your needs
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?
you're not entitled to the earnings of others because a particular resource has become more scarce.
Exactly - you are suggesting stealing from those who creates the extrinsic value that naturally occurs under monopoly conditions, not me!
The same is true of all forms of pollution
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?
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
Typical macho flash response to throw a little red meat into the pen of lions to help you defend an untenable position...
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?
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?
Why, if the hassles are simply pack up your stuff and move to any pick of similiar apts. within walking distance?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
isn't it better in your perfect little adjudication world to spell it out so rights aren't trampled?
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.
Exactly - you are suggesting stealing from those who creates the extrinsic value that naturally occurs under monopoly conditions, not me!
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.
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?
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 macho flash response to throw a little red meat into the pen of lions to help you defend an untenable position...
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.
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 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...
Georgists...claim to be classic liberalists (libertarians)
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!
Originally posted by AdanSmith
Poor Radar has choosen the false comfort of his "schoolyard pals"
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:
As long as you're not referring to us as the "schoolyard pals"...he's no pal of ours
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.
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
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?
I am what is best described as a sycamore liberal. Yep, that works.
Good then as a card carrying member of the Green Party you won't mind my telling you to go hug a tree!
Originally posted by AdanSmith
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?
Who said I was a card carrying member of the Green Party?
Not you - me, pal
Now we're getting somewhere! OK, who sets the valuation of the land, by what method?
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 SmithOriginally posted by AdanSmith
Not you - me, pal
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!
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?
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?
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?
for purposes of establishing a site valuation...
well yes, otherwise it is not a fair valuation - right? determined by the market. otherwise someone could have...
structured deal and thus have it valued at $1 for tax purposes?
which wouldn't be fair right? infact it would be fraudulent!
Well that sounds extremely unfair. I like my house, and I want to live in it. I don't want to sell it at any price. But now I have to pay higher taxes than my mobile neighbor, who sets a low price and simply moves after delaying things for a few months with his uncle who's a real estate lawyer. Now I have to set a higher price than the market in order to stay here, and pay double taxes, even though I'm more valuable to the neighborhood as a long-time landowner.
Originally posted by Radar
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 are slightly mistaken. The idea of 'common ownership', along with unions, is a reaction to the oppression of private ownership.
It's actually like this:
If I privately own a tract of land, I can do whatever I want within that tract of land. If Joe and I share the tract of land, he can limit my freedoms within that tract of land, because he owns it too. If Joe owns that tract of land entirely, then my freedoms on that tract of land are dependent upon Joe's whim.
Private ownership only represents freedom for the person that owns the land. The person that owns the land can oppress the people that live and work on the land (serfs, slaves, employees, what have you). This leads to bitterness, picketing, unions, revolts, and Communism.
The poeple that work on the land are going to think that their freedoms will be more respected if they have some ownership of the land.
AdanSmith said:
read it and weep...
First off, thanks Adan, now I can read your viewpoint and judge for myself. As opposed to someone else's take on it. I appreciate it. I did find it interesting that you chose to be a jackass in presenting it. Especially since I was asking for your side of the story. Oh well.
So anyway, I'm reading from the link and start getting nervous as soon as I'm being told about morality. Then I get this.
Rather, because land-titles are generally used as a means of assuming exclusive possession of land without adhering to John Locke's proviso,
So I follow the link to learn about Locke's proviso. and I get this.
God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah and his sons, it is very clear that God, as King David says (Psalm 115. 16), "has given the earth to the children of men,"
Now we're at an impasse. You see, I'm not a christian, I don't give a rat's ass about God, what he did, or his will.
I also find it interesting you invoke god and Ayn Rand together given her views on religion. Did anyone actually read any of her stuff other than the portion that sounded supportive of your veiwpoint?
Anyway, I didn't weep, but I did roll my eyes a bit.
Now on to the current thread.
From JanLocke:
which wouldn't be fair right? infact it would be fraudulent!
Riiiiight, 'cause we know people are always fair... Two things, UT's example is valid legally, though I admit it isn't fair and even if it was legally fraud the people with the cash and power won't get prosecuted.
So, we have a second impasse. Even if I believed in the ideals, it still doesn't wash with reality. I'm more interested in what is real than what is fair in some imagined Utopia. So, I'll stay here, in the real world. Have fun with your moral superiority.
Don't understand this thing with 'the air is free'. Of course the air is free. You can breathe all of mine you want, as long as you do it as an invited guest or from the other side of my property line. You are also welcome to fly over my house any time you'd like, just watch out for the birds and don't disturb the goats. I don't care a bit about the theory that we don't own the land but are only cutodians of it. Screw that theory. I may be just a 'long term renter' but until the day they carry me off this plot feet first, it's mine, and I'm sick of the being subjected to the whims of a bunch of section 8 renters who haven't a clue what they're voting for.
Miss a day on this board and you spend an hour catching up.
Maggie M...
Private ownership only represents freedom for the person that owns the land. The person that owns the land can oppress the people that live and work on the land (serfs, slaves, employees, what have you).
Does this mean my goats are oppressed?????
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Poor Radar has choosen the false comfort of his neo-libertarian "schoolyard pals"
Man are you barking up the wrong tree with that comment. Also you're straw man argument with yourself was laughable. Don't ever put words in my mouth, especially ignorant ones such as yours.
I'm doing just fine putting you into your place far beneath me. For the record I’ve never “choosen” anything.
I'm starting to feel right proud of my role as 'oppresive landowner'. Let's see, my husband and I worked and saved for three years to come up with a down payment for our house in California. Then he retired from the navy, and thanks to an overinflated real estate market, we made what most liberals, lazy people, and other folks of no background or breeding would consider an obscene profit. Never mind that we had been breaking our backs for the last five years to make double payments to get the mortgage paid down. Anyway, we moved back to Mississippi and with the profits from the sale of our home, was able to pay cash for the land we now own. It's ours, free and clear, but, if we ever fail to make a tax payment, it suddenly becomes the property of the government. Where's the justice in that? Not that I'm complaining about paying taxes, although there is a whole list of things I'd rather do than pay taxes (root canal, ingrown toenail, visit from the in-laws) but I conceed that ALL people should pay SOME taxes, and the less the better.
About a month after we bought this place we got a letter from the tax accessor wanting to know what we were planning on doing with the property. Being one of those people who firmly believe it's none of the governments damned business what I do on my own land, I wrote back we were going to open a nudist colony. Haven't heard from them since, but I have the feeling that some poor beurocrat spent the morning looking up millage fees on nudists colonies.
Maggie M...
PS: ignore the spelling, I am dyslesic as hell and have always had
a problem with spelling.
This is sad, a witch who can't spell.
Increasing taxes on rents CHANGES the market; the new market rate will be higher than the old market rate.
Changing property taxes from land+improvements to land is a great way of screwing over the guy with a less-improved lot. If you're looking for a way to take less from the rich and more from the (relatively) poor, that's a great way to do it.
Originally posted by ThisOleMiss
It's ours, free and clear, but, if we ever fail to make a tax payment, it suddenly becomes the property of the government. Where's the justice in that?
More than likely, you'd have to fail to pay for several years for
the Man :eek: to take the property.
Even so, I totally agree with you. No one ever
really owns anything in America, they
lease it.
This is also true with an increasing number of non-real assets. Many states have an excise tax on cars (though I wouldnt live in any of them...again).
Now we're at an impasse. You see, I'm not a christian, I don't give a rat's ass about God, what he did, or his will.
fine I could give a rat's ass either I am agnostic. But it doesn't change the fact that no one made it - right?
impasse...
Is that really all the commentary you can muster here?
Simple question: Are the original classical liberals geo-libertarians or neo-libertarians?
yes or no?
Don't understand this thing with 'the air is free'. Of course the air is free
The question Ms. Magpie is...
Turning the tables on that dope Radar...would we not be better off assigning individual, inalienable equal access rights to air as I have suggested?
Or to continue supporting Radar's communistic scheme of the "air is free" so dump away and we'll try and stop you by bringing a lawsuit against you?
And the survey says Ms. Magpie? (I can't wait for this...)
I'm doing just fine putting you into your place far beneath me
Thank goodness YOUR place will remain in LA-LA land since you will not be moving to the FSP in NH where I am located. The reason why is we are already making plans to have an intelligence (call it a "dope") litmus test at the border and guess who is not going to make it?
are you still sticking to the fallacy, without offering any proof to the contrary, that the original classical liberals were neo-libertarians not geo-libertarians?
one last chance to redeem your soiled pants & honor sir...
New Hampshire is a shithole and a perfect place for a retard such as yourself. I can see you having an IQ test at the border to keep people of superior intellect out so we don't rule you.
Your a communist, a liar, and a thief. May you and your ilk rot in hell.
The FSP was the last chance for freedom in America without bloodshed and dishonest enemies of freedom such as yourself have fucked it up for everyone. People will now die in a bloody revolution thanks to you. I hope you're happy.
my husband and I worked and saved for three years to come up with a down payment for our house in California.
well Ms. Magpie you just paid for all of the uncollected economic scarcity rent that the former owner ripped off from the community before you...how do you feel now?
See you could have bought the property three years before that if a geo-libertarian policy were in place...
would consider an obscene profit
no - you got snookered my dear...
we moved back to Mississippi and with the profits from the sale of our home
beautiful you ripped off your neighbors in Calif. thanks to Prop 13 and bought a plantation in Mississippi to continue the oppression that has a deep tradition in the south.
Kind of like the movie "Roots" huh?
Private ownership only represents freedom for the person that owns the land. The person that owns the land can oppress the people that live and work on the land (serfs, slaves, employees, what have you).
Because the monopoly of government granted privilege called land title allows it to continue so it must be right. It does not matter a lick that we have to LIVE and WORK SOMEWHERE, right?
Does this mean my goats are oppressed?????
Since I am assuming you are not charging your goats rent for the privilege of roaming around your nudist plantation - no. I could care less what you do with your goats even if it was legal in LA-LA land and not in the state of Mississippi...you do own them don't you?
Originally posted by Radar
New Hampshire is a shithole
Could you tell me which parts are bad, b/c the parts of NH I've been in are rather nice. That way, when I go back up there next spring, I'll know where not to go.
Thanks man!
For the regulars, this is hilarious on its face: Radar found a reason -- ANY reason, really -- to call the Free State Project bogus and a potential failure, for a minor philosophical point that won't really apply to the FSP until, probably, decades into its existence.
(We understand that "any minor point" can be turned into an immensely large point by Radar, through the application of his odd razor: assuming every other matter solved, THIS matter would be the stumbling block ergo THIS matter is huge.)
A large number of Libby philosophical purists are not really purists at all, but compulsive contrarians. Another segment are church ladies ready to show how everyone else has gone astray. Liberty is their religion and they spend their time in evangelist mode.
The Free State Project has picked New Hampshire to move its 20,000 libbies to. My family welcomes you, please enjoy some maple candy and learn to split firewood. Anyone looking for some awesomely beautiful acreage in Franconia, with the perfectly pure water of the Gale River running right through it, should speak with me directly. You can have better than Poland Spring water running right through your taps. 200 people in Franconia would run the entire goddamn town since the population is about 500 anyway.
Could you tell me which parts are bad, b/c the parts of NH I've been in are rather nice. That way, when I go back up there next spring, I'll know where not to go.
Every part when compared with Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Alaska.
I bet you don't even provide clothes for the poor proletarian dairy producing laborers on your so-called 'nudist colony', do you, you capitalist you. :D
I like my house, and I want to live in it. I don't want to sell it at any price.
Fine set the price of your site (not your building) high enough that no one will buy it...set it too low and bye-bye!
or the regulars, this is hilarious on its face: Radar found a reason -- ANY reason, really -- to call the Free State Project bogus and a potential failure, for a minor philosophical point that won't really apply to the FSP until, probably, decades into its existence.
The truth comes out now - even his "pals" are turning on him.
The minor philosophical point is not so minor in my mind. Property taxes in NH are a singular rate 25 per 1000 of valuation on land and on buildings in my town. Taxing buildings (the fruits of labor) discourages people from building but shifting taxes off buildings and onto land values will incent people to optimize the use of land as it relates to the center city:
1. lower tenant rents by the building boom of apartments
2. make land and housing more affordable by ending speculation
3. curb sprawl without zoning by focusing development downtown where it belongs
4. increase blue collar jobs
5. create more walkable & livable cities while encouraging less dependence on the car
6. protect open space as the edge of the cities contract
The original premise for me being dragged here by "dopey" from the FSP is because I am arguing that the original classical liberals - the French Physiocrats - were in fact Geo-libertarians...treating labor-based property differently than title-based property from our natural world...which no human physically created.
Today's so called "libertarians" are really Neo-libertarians in sheeps clothing and because of this misunderstanding their views actually conflict with their principles and makes them totally unable to deal with issues of social justice and environmental problems.
Here are links to others who layout the proof better than I can:
Neo or "Royal" Libertarian
Todd Altman's site
Read them for yourself and decide...
I am off to start a Geo-libertarian Caucus within the Free State Project here in NH and continue my efforts to expose the Neo-libertarians for what they are - FRAUDS. Anyone who wants to join I welcome if you come with an open mind towards learning the truth!
This thread is becoming more and more like a Seinfeld episode.
Which one is the People's Front of Judea again?
Originally posted by JanLocke
Fine set the price of your site (not your building) high enough that no one will buy it...set it too low and bye-bye!
I am
so glad that I don't live in your country.
Why not just do it the sane way, where you assess the value of someone's home by assigning an employee to assess it's worth, and measuring the price of homes for sale around him?
Do you want to be forced out of your home because you didn't want to pay too much in taxes? Why don't you want someone to be able to say "sorry, not for sale" without robbing them blind in taxes?
From Adan:
fine I could give a rat's ass either I am agnostic. But it doesn't change the fact that no one made it - right?
The basis of Locke's argument is that God made it. Now you say you're agnostic. Therefore it's illegitimate for you to use this argument.
So please, send me a link to what you believe. I asked for it already, and in spite of your continuos rudeness, I've asked again politely.
Simple question: Are the original classical liberals geo-libertarians or neo-libertarians?
Um, actually I don't care. I'm not in any way connected to any form of libertarianism. Not in the slightest. Nor is just about anyone else around here. I'd have to study a bunch of stuff that I'm not interested in to actually be able to form an answer to that question. Neither you nor Radar have given me any reason to spend the time. Though he didn't ask the question either.
You see, the only current libertarians I've talked to, of any sort, are you and Radar. The way you approach things is enough to suggest you are worse than him.
If you back tracked on this site a bit you'd find that Radar has threatened me physically. We aren't pals. So you see, I've no reason to read up on all the back history I'd need to answer your question.
One more time though, as far as the land discussion, what are your beliefs? The ones you actually hold?
Come to think of it, I'd also like to know why you linked me to a site that was supposed to give me your side, then when I take issue with a major point you say you don't believe that anyway. For that matter, why be rude to an impartial observer? I'm still willing to listen to you or Radar, if you make an honest arguement.
At least with Radar even if I think he's nuts I don't doubt he believes what he is saying.
You have not shown the same.
Adan, Gee, I try real hard not to say anything personal about the people who post, but just how far up your ass is your head anyway?
Ripping of my neigbor, well he did it willingly. I did not force him to sign a mortage for 240k, he did it own his own. BTW that was about 30K less than what anyone else would have asked, but we wanted desparatly to leave the socialist state of califuckyou.
Adan, get a life, get a job, get a clue, get laid, get something, as obviously you have been educated well beyond your intelligence and spend way too much time on the internet.
Poll, folks, who'd you rather have over for dinner, Adan, or one of my goats??
Torrere, as a matter of fact, my goats have some very nice 'goat coats' for inclement weather. They're made of nylon lined with polar fleece, designed to keep the little kiddes warm. I run them up on my sewing machine.
My poor 'working' goats have such a hard life, they get fed grain twice a day, have all the hay they want, all the green stuff they can eat, and 20 acres of pasture land to play in. They've got a nice snug 'goat shed' and get better health care than most people. In return all I expect is for them to keep the pasture free of weeds and brush, a few gallons of milk per day, and an increase in herd size. If anyone is worried about them ending up in the freezer, it isn't going to happen, they're more like pets than farm animals.
Guess that makes me the same as the big bad goverment, oppressing the poor goats like that, expecting them to work in exchange for all those goodies. Oh my god, I think I may be a
CONSERVATIVE!!!!
- you provide warm coats to protect them from bad weather
- you supply them with good food
- comfortable working conditions
- comfortable housing
- 20 acre range
- free medical and health care
It sounds like you might have a liberal streak to ya, missy! Next thing you know, you'll be giving your goats Twizzlers!
BUT! What would happen if you were not such a good mistress? What if you were the Cruella deVille sort?
Would your goats be fleeced before the winter came with it's cold storms?
Would your goats live in stalls little larger than a cubicle?
Would your goats have to live on a thin gruel of watery wheat paste?
Would you take the hatchet to them if they didn't produce enough milk?
You see, it all depends upon you. Since you are a good mistress, the goats live well. Were you not a good mistress, the goats might suffer in ways you would shiver to think about.
Socialism came about to curtail the abuses of the Cruella deVilles of the world. The people that Upton Sinclair was trying to expose. The goats may have lucked out this time, but do they have a choice whether they will work for you or for another? What about those poor goats out there that are being oppressed?