Wealth Tax >>>MOD WARNING<<<

The castaway's limited options are not caused by the man who's home he invaded. They're caused by whatever misfortune put him in the water. Dragging a man to your home and forcing him to work is slavery. Offering him more options than he made for himself on the open sea, even if it's less than equal share of your home, is charity.


​

 

I demonstrated why you're wrong. People aren't land. The two are in no way analogous

- - - Updated - - -

Not perhaps. No ones rights are violated.

 

Oh, come on now. We both know that forcing the man back into the ocean to swim and thus drown would violate his rights, your silver tongued attempt at disguising not doing it as charity nonetheless. And you're not "offering him options". You're denying him a naturally existing option in the first place. The island was already there.

 

People aren't the sun either. Yet if I invented a device which blots out the sun I'm sure you'd agree that I'm violating human rights.

So legal status is the sole determiner of righteousness? You seem to have very low moral standards.

 

Why? The landowners paid the taxes which built the infrastructure. Now you want to tax them out of their land? If not for the landowners there wouod be no infrastructure.

You live in a dream world and have no grasp on reality.

- - - Updated - - -

You do like fairy tales!

 

Really! And how does the landowner extort anyone? By paying taxes and funding the infrastructure that all the non-landowners get to use?

 

The content is simple. You have no argument to rebut. Why should anyone demonstrate why a non argument is wrong? If LVT was viable it would be a prominent economic tool. It isn't. It is an archaic idea whose time has never come, and will never come. Its a pipe dream.

 

Another non sequitur

No rights are violated

 

So your "high" moral standard is to steal property that others bought honestly such that the community has better control? That is a bankrupt concept right from the start.

- - - Updated - - -

The actual likely occurrence would be the original inhabitant welcoming him there to be company.

 

Not so low as he who would steal another persons property which that person paid for with his own honestly earned money.

 

dnsmith buys himself a piece of marginal land to speculate with. As a city starts to sprawl towards his land, it becomes valuable and thus he starts to pay tax on it. He pays the tax by short term leasing it to a tenant. dnsmith has produced nothing and has contributed nothing, as the land was already there, he's simply legally privileged to take money from his tenant for doing nothing and gives up a portion of it in taxes. All of a sudden, the city plans a new train station right at dnsmith's land! It skyrockets in value and thus he gets much more money from leases of which the city asks him to pay a fraction back in property tax. Still, dnsmith has contributed nothing and has produced nothing as the land was already there. Yet for some reason he's under the false impression that he's the one who made the land valuable rather than the community.

 

Train station is on the other side of town. DNSmith's taxes help the city to build infrastructure. Then it skyrockets in value.

A fraction which is plenty enough to maintain the infrastructure and increase the value of the rest of the property simultaneously.

Yet his purchase of the land enhanced the value of all surrounding land building up the tax base for the city to continue expanding. In fact on adjacent area of city owned property is set aside for industrial development and more businesses come to the city creating more jobs and further improving the economy.

In fact he has made the land more valuable in concert with the city..

Second scenario:

Man buys land near a city. Man pays tax on the land and over the years it pays for the infrastructure out to his location. Because of the landowner the other land, up to this point scrub land, becomes more valuable. Developer buys land and builds roads and installs water and sewer lines selling the property to potential homeowners, all who pay taxes. As the development is completed infrastructure is deeded to the city and the city now uses tax money to maintain the infrastructure.

 

I like your signature line:

Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.

 

His signature starts with a bald falsehood so it can't be all that accurate. Doesn't surprise me though that you agree with bald falsehood.

 

The right to life is not guaranteed in war. When invaders force their way across your borders and refute your law, that's war. An appropriate response is violence.

Offering less is either appeasement or charity. If a man is more refugee than invader, if he is honestly has no life without our charity — I'm inclined to offer some. But if he's not willing to accept that option and the terms that go with it, then it's war.


​

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you!​

 

So now you are calling Taxpayer a liar? What surprises me is your lack of understanding of economics and how negative georgism would affect economics.

 

Bald falsehood.

Bald falsehood.

 

So now you are falsely claiming Armor called Taxpayer a liar?

It might be interesting -- and would certainly be surprising -- to see an actual argument to that effect. But I'm guessing probably not.

 

It's never guaranteed. But your claim seems to be an attempt to characterize a lone man trying to save his own life by exercising his right to liberty as an invasion by a foreign power. Do you think that method of "argument" is honest, let alone valid?

No, it isn't, or Mexico would be at war with the USA. It isn't. Your claim is therefore (surprise!) a bald falsehood.

The apologist for landowner greed and privilege believes that violence is an appropriate response to any effort to obtain justice.

That is an absurd false dichotomy fallacy, as well as a question begging fallacy, because you are assuming what you claim to be proving: that the landowner rightly owns others' rights to liberty, and can "offer" them back or not, at their pleasure.

His right to liberty is not your property to either offer to or withhold from him.

You mean murder or enslavement. Why not just say what you obviously believe the landowner has every right to do: enslave the refugee or kill him?​

 

No, it's called a reductio ad absurdum. An argument that justifies slavery implies an absurd result, and is therefore refuted.

 

I'm not comparing land with labor. I am identifying the fact that forcibly making people's rights to liberty into someone else's private property one person at a time or one right at a time both result in removal of people's rights to liberty.

Given the number of my posts you have responded to on the subjects of land and labor, it strains credulity that you could possibly believe any such thing.

Such claims are absurd. While union rent seeking is significant, especially in the public sector, it is dwarfed by landowner rent seeking, as the astronomical price of land proves so very conclusively.

 

He hasn't invaded anyone's home. He's simply arrived at a place nature provided.

Telling a man to work for your benefit or get back in the water is slavery.

But that's not what the land thief/enslaver is doing. He is FORCIBLY REMOVING options that the refugee would otherwise have enjoyed. See, that's the crucial difference between rightly owning a product of labor and wrongly claiming to own what nature provided for all. The product of labor wouldn't have been there otherwise. The land would. You can only preserve your false beliefs by refusing to know that fact.

It would only be "your" home if you rightly owned it, and land can never rightly be owned, for reasons this exchange has demonstrated very clearly: it forcibly removes people's rights to liberty, effectively making them into slaves.

 

The comparison made with slavery was comparison of factor of production, by definition.

I think we can both agree that there is no comparison between land ownership and slavery.

You're again deliberately skewing rent seeking to minor issues. There isn't significant rent seeking in the public sector. Wages, for example, are higher. However, education also tends to be higher. At best you have a reference to bilateral monopoly (and therefore an analysis which combines bargaining power within issues of monopsony). Rent seeking reflects underpayment: from the obvious case of discrimination (which, within a Marxist context, leads to all workers suffering through divide and conquer) to general exploitation of labour market power. These issues dwarf land rent seeking; an issue which is old-fashioned (given industrialisation)

 

Were that true, no country could ever rightly establish or defend it's borders.


​

 

Non sequitur. slavery is not analogous to land.