Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BillG]

Here is the crux of the matter folks!

a right is not "universal" if you have to purchase it from someone or someone else "gifts it" to you...it something we are all born with.

I need FOOD to live right? The right to Life is not universal if I am forced to purchase food for it, or purccase medicle care, or purchase shelter, or whatever else, for it.

In this argument of yours land (a Place oi stand) is no more a necesity of living then food, shelter, mecicle care, or anything else. I have to purchase my right to life everytime I buy food. By your logic (Except, I forgot, you don't believe in logic, you embrace the paradoxes), people should give me food, and other things I need to survive as well.

Tracy

if you have to purchase or beg for your right to a "place to stand" then self-ownership is not a universal right because how can you own yourself inorder to excercise your faculties if you have to pay someone to exist somewhere?

...everything else you list is a product of human labor so strawman!

next!

[BillG]

Maybe, maybe not. Not if the government rasies taxes to compensate. -- Which I'm sure it would

my "simple tax shift" is revenue nuetral...75% of the residential structures would see not net difference while 15% would see a significant drop in taxes in the rural areas and 10% would see a dramatic increase in the urban core who are not optimizing the use of their locations...

[Tracy Saboe]

Like you said.

It's "revenue neutral."

It's revenue neutral, while at the same time teaching people that land taxation is a good thing, and doing it in the name of liberty.

Thereby making entrenching the tyranny in the name of liberty, and making it more dificult to reduce taxes in the future.

Tracy

[BillG]

land taxation is a good thing

no land taxation is a BETTER "thing" than taxation on the fruits of one's labor which is a disincentive to build...

[Tracy Saboe]

Well, if all you're advocating is that a land tax is the least bad tax, fine. But you're not. You're advocating the VIRTUES of land taxation. You're saying that Land Taxation is a good thing.  You're saying that land taxation is even neccessary for liberty. How do you expect us to help bring liberty about after you've already taught the poor people of Concord that taxes are nessesary?

Tracy

[BillG]

Well, if all you're advocating is that a land tax is the least bad tax, fine. But you're not. You're advocating the VIRTUES of land taxation. You're saying that Land Taxation is a good thing.  You're saying that land taxation is even neccessary for liberty. How do you expect us to help bring liberty about after you've already taught the poor people of Concord that taxes are nessesary?

Tracy

I am arguing for the VIRTUES of LIBERTY! Which is impossible to achieve without the economic scarcity rent being returned to the rightful owners. Otherwise, there can be no universal right to self-ownership because you have to purchase a space to occupy...

[Tracy Saboe]

I am arguing for the VIRTUES of LIBERTY! Which is impossible to achieve without the economic scarcity rent being returned to the rightful owners. Otherwise, there can be no universal right to self-ownership because you have to purchase a space to occupy...

Yes, we've all heard your little religious mantra.

But you're really arguing for the virtues of land taxation, because we need a citizens dividend (read welfare).

Tracy

[rdeacon]

Morph - these people don't run off because they belong anywhere, they run off because they're chased out by the tip-of-the-diamond vocal minority.  My principles are meaningless if they stand no chance of becoming reality - do I do them any justice by shooting myself in the foot in their name?

so the guy on the left runs off to the Greens,

A Party which wants to bring about full-scale Socialism and the destruction of private property.

the guy on the right runs off to the Republicans or the Constitution Party

And a Party which wants to bring about full-scale Theocracy and the death of homosexuals.

They who would join, or affiliate in any way, with either Party I would say is an individual who probably was not with us on most other issues either. Good riddance.

When are you going to understand, Justin, that we accomplish nothing if we cannot even recruit people who will VOTE FOR OUR PRINCIPLES?!?!

[BillG]

I am arguing for the VIRTUES of LIBERTY! Which is impossible to achieve without the economic scarcity rent being returned to the rightful owners. Otherwise, there can be no universal right to self-ownership because you have to purchase a space to occupy...

Yes, we've all heard your little religious mantra.

But you're really arguing for the virtues of land taxation, because we need a citizens dividend (read welfare).

Tracy

my fall back position is that we would be better of from a freedom point of view collecting the money from the landowner and throwing it into the sea!

so it is not about the money...it is about freedom!

[5pectre]

This is the big problem with Libertarianism that I see.

You shout high about non-aggression yet the very land you stand on was the product of state and personal aggression. It is double-think of the highest calibre.

Nobody is born with a right to own land.
If there is no unclaimed land left, tough luck.

QUITE THE OPPOSITE! Everyone is born with a right to the land. It can be no other way (unless of course you participate in some kind of land reclamation project). Saying people have no right to the land is like saying people aren't born with the right to the air they breathe. It's retarded.

It should be possible to live without having to work for anyone else. For this you need enough land to be able to subsistence farm on.

[RhythmStar]

This is the big problem with Libertarianism that I see.

You shout high about non-aggression yet the very land you stand on was the product of state and personal aggression. It is double-think of the highest calibre.

Nobody is born with a right to own land.
If there is no unclaimed land left, tough luck.

QUITE THE OPPOSITE! Everyone is born with a right to the land. It can be no other way (unless of course you participate in some kind of land reclamation project). Saying people have no right to the land is like saying people aren't born with the right to the air they breathe. It's retarded.

It should be possible to live without having to work for anyone else. For this you need enough land to be able to subsistence farm on.

And the land is there, empty and waiting.  Alas, governments and corporate collectives have it all under armed lock and key.

RS

[DustinD]

if you have to purchase or beg for your right to a "place to stand" then self-ownership is not a universal right because how can you own yourself inorder to excercise your faculties if you have to pay someone to exist somewhere?

There are 57,500,000 square miles of land in the world, over %60 uninhabited in the world. IIRC only %6 of the land is developed in the USA. No one is without, or will ever be without a place to stand. No one throughout history has lacked a place to stand.

...everything else you list is a product of human labor so strawman!

BillG: You are arguing need. What difference does it make if someone did, or did not make something when you argue need. If someone has something, and you do not, and you need it, then you have to pay or beg for it, regardless of who created, claimed, or bought it. Anyway you look at it, every human is a slave by your definition. We all buy what we need from others.

It should be possible to live without having to work for anyone else. For this you need enough land to be able to subsistence farm on.

You have the same chances and rights as any other human. There is also no lack of land.

[5pectre]

And the land is there, empty and waiting.  Alas, governments and corporate collectives have it all under armed lock and key.

Correct. Corps have land locked up under "Private Property Ownership Rights" which libertarians say they value so much. Governments are also to blame I agree, although there is a difference between national parks and what the corps own.

BillG: You are arguing need. What difference does it make if someone did, or did not make something when you argue need. If someone has something, and you do not, and you need it, then you have to pay or beg for it, regardless of who created, claimed, or bought it. Anyway you look at it, every human is a slave by your definition. We all buy what we need from others.

Of course it makes a difference if you made it. If someone made it then they rightly deserve compensation, if someone stole something or took something that they didn't put labour in to make then why should they be compensated?

Would you suggest buying back your property (for market rates) after it was stolen by a thief?

You have the same chances and rights as any other human. There is also no lack of land.

Bullshit. I have many more chances than other human beings. Being born in a rich part of the world I can choose to go to a poor country and buy land at much cheaper prices than in my home country. To say that a person from the poor part of the world can do the same is absurd. I don't have the same rights as other human beings either. For example I don't have the right to travel freely. In order to enter your country I must give genetic identification. You say there is no lack of land. This may be true, however how would you like to go and live in Siberia? It isn't just the fact that land is available there must be access to the land aswell.

[BillG]

The British are coming the British are coming!

God save the Queen!

you are on fire 5pectre!