Geoists are they nuts or what?

If this were true then why do so many Nobel prize winning economists say that it is a workable system?

http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates#toc1

 

Oh, noes, your freeloading would come to an end. The system is not in sync with your greed? GOOD!

 

Appeal to popularity fallacy. I don't care what a group of economists think. It's unworkable.

- - - Updated - - -

Freeloading? Lol

 

I understand that, but I disagree with the premise. While adopting a system whereby all wages are equal for the same type of work may sound like a remedy to the angry masses staging a coup, these liberal-type professors and economists always miss one vital thing -- human nature.

Human nature tells us that by rewarding the most productive and inventive, we motivate others to that level of production, and society, as a whole, benefits.

I'm not so much impressed by those who win a Nobel, Arafat and Obama also won nobels for Peace and both were/are jingoists. Nobels simply reflect the mindset of those awarding the prizes.

That said, economists in general, form theoretical models that attempt to solve hunger and disparity.

The Law of Rent and Land Value Taxation fall within that category. They completely ignore what prompts humans to achieve to their greatest ability. That's my problem with the ideas.

 

That has nothing to do with Geoism. Whatever it is that you are arguing against, it is not Geoism.

Land is neither produced nor invented.

How does society as a whole benefit when the publicly created value of land is privatized? Only the landowner qua landowner benefits.

Does achieving greatness mean taking as much as possible from the wealth pie while contributing as little as possible to it? If not, then maybe you should actually read about Geoism.

"A portion, in some cases the whole, of every benefit which is laboriously acquired by the community is represented in the land value, and finds its way automatically into the landlord's pocket. If there is a rise in wages, rents are able to move forward, because the workers can afford to pay a little more. If the opening of a new railway or a new tramway or the institution of an improved service of workmen's trains or a lowering of fares or a new invention or any other public convenience affords a benefit to the workers in any particular district, it becomes easier for them to live, and therefore the landlord and the ground landlord, one on top of the other, are able to charge them more for the privilege of living there." - Winston Churchill

"The most comfortable, but also the most unproductive way for a capitalist to increase his fortune, is to put all monies in sites and await that point in time when a society, hungering for land, has to pay his price" — Andrew Carnegie

 

Land has worked as is since we had a foot in the cave. There are plenty of tribes who don't believe in ownership, and they have not evolved, and are decimated when confronted by the other half. Have you ever heard the term, "don't fix it if it ain't broke"? There are plenty of things that need addressed that are clear cut problems that you might actually be able to do something about. Why on earth people would waste there time on a notion that wouldn't come to fruition in a 1000 years, blows my mind. But to each his own.

But my advise, don't push the "doesn't benefit anyone" line of thinking. Human evolution dictates it's an absurd claim. We all benefit when a human is motivated. Production and efficiency ensue, which in turn means more for all to obtain, and just because we have to pay for something doesn't make it inherently evil. Tribes that share all land don't do as much as a whole as allowing one of their tribe members his own particular piece of earth to prosper on. The proof is in the pudding.

 

I was responding to his statement about the Law of Rent. I think wage-setting is not feasible.

Just because land is not being produced or invented does not mean it should not be owned. There is no god-given right of natural resources to everyone at large. Like any owned object, you can't take it with you, but you can transfer title and ownership. I prefer individuals owning land than governments owning it. We have seen how ineffective it is when governments own the land - think Nevada.

The problem is - you think there is a "pie." There isn't. Wealth is created during the natural supply/demand cycle. Just because one person accumulates a great amount of wealth does not mean another person cannot also create the same amount.

LVT is just another tax. It is no more fair than is any other form of taxation. It's less fair, actually, because it doesn't extend across the board. I oppose nearly all taxes, but if we must have them - they should apply to everyone.

Geoism is just one more method of wealth-distribution. And, in my opinion, it's one of the worst ideas around.

 

I don't like this line of arguing either. It is the main one people use to justify theft of the nation's wealth via free trade, when I can easily use it to justify taxing the wealthiest to death. "Wealth is not a pie, bro. Make more." What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Yes, infrastructure must be supported. This makes the theft that is taxation a delicate subject we all must watch cautiously.

But when arguing theft for the sake of pocket books of the top is acceptable via no national protection for industry and workers, one leaves himself ZERO wiggle room when it comes to taxation for infrastructure.

In order for there to be truth, there must be consistency. If "wealth" isn't a pie, why would the top (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about any taxes?

 

Funding what specifically?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not proposing a system. I'm simply saying that, unlike your system, I oppose all taxation, because it is a violation of property rights.

 

You realize that's just the opposite side of "the government should own everything", right?

Both versions are slavery.

 

No. I don't realize that liberty is slavery.

 

Ask miners who had to eat at company stores and pay rent to company owners who were negative each month after working all week long at the turn of the century.

Seriously. You're the same as those who refuse to acknowledge the evils of leftism because proof from history isn't "their leftism".

But whatever.

 

You mean 115 years ago?

 

Yeah, because those with money have evolved into such rational people.

Case in point - your argument.

You do realize the law and military, the things you don't think should be paid for, are the only thing keeping rich people alive, right?

There's maybe a handful of people that could afford a private army on their doorstep, and you want to talk about cutting into profits.

I can't believe I'm even wasting my time having to say this. Think.

 

The opposite of the government owning everything is the people owning everything. How exactly is this slavery?

 

Well that was thoroughly useless few minutes. Chock full of nonsequitors, and nonsense in almost equal measure. Sorry but reality is quite different than as supposed by Mr. George.

 

Besides the fact that it's an unfair way to valuate and tax - who is going to determine value? That becomes a HUGE issue because you can bet there will be all sorts of under-the-table dealings.

The best method of taxation is as little taxation as possible, obviously, but "use" taxes and "sales" taxes are more fair across the board. If you USE a road, a toll or fuel tax will help pay for it. If you BUY something, you pay a sales tax. Poor people buy less and will naturally pay less in taxes. I would however, remove taxes from basic food items, which would also help.

But, there is no feasible way to allow someone to own a house, but not to own the land it sits on. That puts ownership of the house at a great risk. There is no guarantee and the government has WAY too much control.

LVT is a mistake any way you look at it. I know some Nobel prize winners have advocated it - but that's all a bunch of hooey.

 

In restricting the use of others, the state asserts a property right itself.

What did the state/the people collectively do to gain ownership of the land? Just as much. (*)(*)(*)(*)ing nothing. That ownership should go to the state to be leased out to serfs is no more ethically/politically objective than the natural law conjecture of the homesteaders.

Say it with me again: the default is not collective ownership. There is no objective allocation of resources.

 

Without some taxation there is no government.

Wanting no government is the opposite of wanting government to control everything.

Without taxation there is no law enforcement. Ergo: there is no laws.

Without laws, you have a world of rich with their own armies. Feudalism.

Slavery would return overnight.

Since I seriously doubt you're a billionaire posting on a forum in his spare time, no doubt you yourself, with whatever skill set you might possess, would become the equivalent of the machinist who now works at Walmart because the factory moved to China.

I'm not a soothsayer, I simply applied common sense. It is a waste of time arguing with something who thinks some communist utopia will come to fruition, just as it is with someone who thinks a society without taxation could happen.

In the end, it matters not. The way to make America grow is to take her back to her roots. Large government externally, with small government internally. I can use the worker's vote for the prior, and your ideals for the latter.

Everyone plays a part.

 

Fixing America's woes is easy as to solutions. One doesn't need some great geoist plan. One simply needs to do the opposite of what globalists have done for a century. They were done specifically to bring us down to a level where they could merge us with the rest. Doing the opposite would be like letting the lion out of its cage, taking the governor off of the engine, when the condom snaps and suddenly everything feels right... I think you all get my drift.

The hard part is getting globalists out of power. Our nation is ran by traitors. And I don't use that word lightly.

 

A house can be paid off but stop paying the property taxes for a few go-arounds and the police show up and kick your ass out on the street. Then there are things like eminent domain and civil forfeiture, so yeah, absolute private ownership is a myth.

 

I don't agree with that assertion.

And I also disagree with that assertion.

 

Geoism has nothing to do with state ownership of land. The land value tax is not a tax on land, it is a payment for the use of government force. Only the individuals who want the state to secure their exclusive use of land by force pay the fee. If you are using land that nobody else wants to use, then you don't need to use force, and you don't pay the fee. All a geoist really wants is for government to sell its services like any other business would, at what the market will bear, because then government wouldn't have to levy arbitrary taxes on production and trade.

But you don't really need to worry about geoism ever becoming reality, because it faces too much opposition. On the one side you have large landowners who love the subsidies (near free protection, near free access to public infrastructure and services) that government gives landowners. And on the other side you have progressives which want a huge nanny-state which geoism simply isn't capable of financing.

 

Government.

 

Funding what outlays specifically?