And if you charge me taxes, the value of my land is going to go down, because the next person that wants to purchase it will figure the "rent" into his expenses and not be willing to pay as much for it. This goes for the "poor" people you're trying to help too. They won't be able to afford to purchase as much land as they otherwise would, because they're forced to pay taxes.
Yes the value of land will go down because people who underutilize their land (read: speculators) will pay a heavy societal burden and have to sell but believe it or not the "poor" people will gladly take this trade-off..
Yes, many poor people will gladly take a hand-out, from a rich property owner, and they'll probably think using the government to force the owners to do "give" it with guns is a good thing.
What societal burden. Societies don't own or have owed to them anything. Only individuals can own and have things owed to them. I don't own anything to "SOCIETY," and neither do you. Saying that somebody owes society
something is an extremely collectivist thing to say.
First of all, we need speculators. Speculators are what the economy and the environment both need to conserve resources. Many many acres of forest were kept from being cut down, because investors had bought the land, because they knew the price of timber was going up (so they did some thinking work - that should be worth something right?). if they hadn't been allowed to sit on their land, they would have been forced to sell it off to make current money, thereby causing irregularities: Over-depressing the prices of lumber, and causing a true shortage later. Because they would have been forced to sell off their land, or sell trees, or whatever, just to keep their own land, we probably wouldn't have any forests left. And then the price of timber would REALLY shoot up. So instead of the value of timber, going up gradually, and then leveling off and going down again on their own when
forest plantation owners start developing their trees (like they did, and would do better if all of the forests were privately owned). The price of timber gets depressed as land owners are forced to sell to make current money, just so they can keep their land, until their's a real
shortage of trees and the price skyrockets.
When the cost of trees would skyrocket, who do you think would be left holding the bag. The poor people. The ones who now need housing, but they can't get it, because the timber has been overexploited because land owners weren't allowed to keep their property.
I seriously doubt if you've ever read the book Free Market Environmentalism
or you wouldn't be saying such things.
2ndly, if I go out, and I dig myself an underground house, put up solar panels for electricity, and build myself a small water tower to collect rain in. I can probably live off the land. After I have everything set up, I'm probably not going to do much with it. I will probably under-utilize it. You would force me to make money (FRNs, Gold, Whatever) just so I can keep my shelter and live in it? Or Force me to sell it, and then I have to start all over again someplace else with my labor?
It's not my fault people have moved into the area and need places to stay. Why should I be force to pay for them? they chose to come here. Now, if I make my own kids, yeah, then I'm responsible for them, but why should I be forced to pay for other peoples kids? Those other people are the ones who made them. Giving a dividend out to everybody evenly based on population seems to me, like it would cause the same sort of mentality whereby parents have more kids just so they can get more welfare money, like in our current welfare system.
"Under the current Neo-libertarian system you can try to accumulate the capital needed to purchase a piece of land (which includes the economic scarcity rent in the inflated purchase price) all the while your current landlord "TAXES' your labor at exorbitant rates because the supply of land is scarce due to speculators"
First of all again, you haven't proven to me that "economic scarcity rent" is anything more then
your imaginative construct, because many times the undeveloped value of land goes down (in real terms) The main reason rents get exorbitant isn't because of speculators either, but because of zoning laws. Speculators typically hold onto land until such a time comes that that land is worth developing. It's when rents are extremely high, that development becomes worthwhile, and speculators want to build. The reason
development isn't done, is because current owners of developed property vote to make zoning laws that prevent developers from developing, because the owners of developed property don't want the value of their house to go down. It's not the speculators who want the zoning laws, they want to develop when there is sufficient demand to make it worth while. The owners of developed property, outvote speculators to put in zoning laws. (Democracy really is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on
what to have for dinner isn't it.) The thing to do then, is to get rid of the zoning laws. Not add more socialism. It's when rents are really really cheap that speculators don't develop their land -- because there isn't enough demand to make it worth while.
"Under the Geo-libertarian system the price of land will come down substantially as speculators are forced to pay a heavy burden. Landowners will be encouraged to use their land more intensively the closer you get to the urban core (highest values) and build apartments/businesses that will significantly drive down the price of homes and apartments so your labor won't be "TAXED" so heavily. When you are now able to save enough money and if you
choose to buy a high value piece of land you just need to use it productively - the more the better"
why should speculators be forced to pay a "burden." They didn't steal anything from anybody. This scenario you suggest would already happen if you got rid of the zoning laws that make it illegal for developers to build in certain places. And it would be easier to save enough money to go out an buy a house, if I wasn't forced to pay the property tax that's passed onto me by my landlord.
And do you really want land-owners to use their land more intensively? It seems to me, that would and could wreck the environment. It's much better to let owners decide what to do on their own property for themselves, instead of their property being regulated through taxation. If I want to buy a piece of land, and live off of it, that should be my choice. I shouldn't be forced to make
money, just so I can keep it.
What is your decision Mr. "poor" man?
Why do you call me poor? You got the man part right, for that is my sex. But why do you call me poor? How do you define poor?
Do you choose slavery or freedom?
I want freedom, but I don't want your version of freedom. Your version of freedom would force land-owners to be slaves to non-landowners. It would force me to pay for sheltering people who could, and should help themselves. You're type of freedom would force me to pay for buerocrats to barge into my home with guns. You're type of freedom would encourage homelessness (Because it's
harder to save money for a home) and welfare. True freedom doesn't encourage neither.
You forget that if everybody is receiving this dividend money for free, that it would drive up demand for many things, including housing, which would just force landlords to jack up their rent to prevent shortages. The dividend wouldn't help the "poor." Because they didn't earn it, they
would, for the most part use it frivolously. That's what all welfare does. And they would be just as homeless as they are now.
We'll never be free if you keep preaching your philosophy. You're never going to attract people who really want to be free and not dependent on anybody with this. The only people this philosophy is going to attract is going to be covetous people who think it's right for the state to steal for them. And you're not going to attract true liberty lovers who really want to reduce government.