According to your beliefs if I carve a baseball bat out of a tree and rent it out to someone that's just fine.Â Someone is paying for the use of something I created.Â But if I rent out a house that I built myself on land that I legitimately own than I'm a theif.Â That is one of the most whacked out, ignorant, things I've ever heard.Â
That is not what I am saying.
If a 5 a.c. parcel of land is purchased that has never had any labor "mixed with it" besides being surveyed, speculated on for 10 years, then sold...what I am saying is that the appreciated value of that piece of land comes from positive externalities that are outside of any labor applied to the land and this is called economic scarcity rent. For an individual to then pocket this money is infact theft because it was created outside the efforts of the landowner.
Also if I own something like property, land, etc.Â and I choose to rent it out, it is a private financial transaction between me and the seller.Â Someone needs shelter, and I am offering it.Â They agree to compensate me for that shelter.Â They aren't paying for the building, they are paying for my permission to stay in it.Â There is no theft involved what-so-ever which makes this statement utterly false:
You are completely confusing labor-based property and land-based property. If you don't know the difference you will never be able to articulate a defense.
Good, free land is available to all who purchase it.Â You are not born with an entitlement to use any land.Â But you are born with the ownership of your person and your labor and you may exchange your labor to purchase land.
You are completely confusing the equal accessn right to land and "born with an entitlement to use any land". If you don't know the difference you will never be able to articulate a defense.
What passes for Libertarian views today are the same views that were called classic liberalism long ago.Â What doesn't pass for libertarianism are twisted, misinterpretations of classic liberalism such as Georgism.
So where is your link to back this up like I provided? Look up Thomas Paine's "Agrarian Justice" in google and educate yourself...
a few excerpt:
Liberty and Property are words expressing all those of our possessions which are not of an intellectual nature. There are two kinds of property. Firstly, natural property, or that which comes to us from the Creator of the universe--such as the earth,air, water. Secondly, artificial or acquired property--theinvention of men.
In the latter, equality is impossible; for to distribute it equally it would be necessary that all should have contributed in the same proportion, which can never be the case; and this being the case, every individual would hold on to his own property, as his right share. Equality of natural property is the subject of this little essay. Every individual in the world is born therein with legitimate claims on a certain kindof property, or its equivalent.
But the earth in its natural state, as before said, is capable of supporting but a small number of inhabitants compared with what it is capable of doing in a cultivated state. And as it is impossible to separate the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement is made, the idea of landed property arose from that parable connection; but it is nevertheless true, that it is the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.
Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community a ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue.
There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue. Whence then, arose the idea of landed property? I answer as before, that when cultivation began the idea of landed property began with it, from the impossibility of separating the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement was made.
To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property
Need I go on and embarass you further? http://geolib.pair.com/essays/paine.tom/agjst.html
The landOWNER offers someone shelter in exchange for money earned by the labor of someone else.Â They can refuse and go somewhere else or they can work and pay for their own property.Â The exchange is totally voluntary and the landOWNER is taking a risk by allowing someone else to use his property, is liable for injuries that occur on his property due to disrepair, etc.Â The owner takes the risk and is therefore earning the money he recieves in exchange for the use of his property.
You are confusing rent in exchange for shelter with economic scarcity rent which's value is created outside the land in question. A Georgist looks at the rent you receive from shelter as legitimate capital accumulation from the fruits of someone's labor (buildings) and in actuality want to encourage this so the owner can thus pay the economic scarcity rent. If you don't know the difference you will never be able to articulate a defense.
There is no entity known as "the community" that has rights or owns things.
Who "owns" the sky? Who "owns" the public airways? Who "owns" the public roads?
Libertarianism is on the opposite end of the universe of socialism.Â They are diametrically opposed.Â Nothing could be more UN-Libertarian than Georgism (the incredibly stupid belief that people who collect rent are thieves), or the Green Party which represents extreme socialism on the fringe of communism.Â
So, Mr. Neo-libertarian please explain why Libertarian's and Green's political platforms are in alignment on civil liberties issues like decriminalization of victimless crimes if they are in your words "diametrically opposed"?