Geoists are they nuts or what?

Everything. Law enforcement, fire protection, military, social safety nets etc.

 

Those who wish to purchase these services could pay those willing to provide them.

 

This is unworkable. A small percentage of the population would voluntarily contribute for the services. And only in their local communities. There would be no way to fund the federal government.

Society can not exist without government. Government can't exist without taxation.

 

If only a small percentage want the service, then maybe that indicates that the service isn't really wanted.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed

Disagree

 

Which is an unworkable society. Sorry, but sometimes there's stuff you gotta pay for, even if you don't like it.

There's nothing to disagree with. If there isn't a means for funding, the government collapses. It can't exist without taxation. Individuals voluntarily contributing will only contribute to services they perceive as directly affecting them. Fire, police, water etc. which is provided by the local government. There is simply no way to voluntarily fund the federal government on a voluntary basis.

 

A system of governance is nothing more than a system of rules. Making rules doesn't require money.

The services you mention could all be purchased by those who want them and not purchased by those don't want them.

 

Enforcing them does. Without enforcement rules are meaningless.

Already shown this to be unworkable. If 5% of the population is willing to "donate" to the U.S. Military, how exactly do you think they will be able to function?

 

Judges can certainly charge court costs, or even try cases pro bono under certain circumstances.

In that case, they are being asked not to function. So they wouldn't.

 

And when people refuse to comply? enforcement is the only way rules work. Otherwise they are just statements. The only way to have enforcement is funding.

Lol, and then government collapses and society is destroyed.

I can't tell if you are a POE or not.

 

You mean those who don't want the state to use force against them for trying to put the land into production. ie: the state owns the land. They might hide behind a lot of Geoist rhetoric, but at the end of the day they reserve the right to restrict use - that's ownership.

The state operates in a monopoly, so they assert ownership of every inch of land on the planet. There is no "land that nobody wants to use".

Their service is conquering the land and creating a class of serfs who are able to use the land at the lord's discretion. That's not one I can get behind.

That we can agree on. Sure, Geoism would be an improvement, I don't deny that, but it's about time we admitted there is no justified allocation of land and that we're all in a constant state of war over its use. That's how it has always been, that's how it will always be. There's a scarce amount of a resource, so the fittest among us get more.

That's just how the world works.

 

Enforcement could certainly be carried out by volunteer police departments, just as fires are put out by volunteer fire departments. Or the successful plaintiff could pay (either directly or though insurance) for the legal judgement to be enforced.

So you're saying that people would realize the disastrous consequences of not funding territorial defense and would decide that funding it is worth it. That seems reasonable.

 

How many people voluntarily place their lives in danger for no pay?

How?

Nope. The vast majority of the population simply isn't willing to donate their money for benefits they don't perceive as directly tangible. It's human nature. And they also may not agree the service is actually necessary. But they benefit from it regardless of their approval, so they must be forced to pay for it.

It's the only way government works. Without taxation government and society collapse.

 

Every volunteer firefighter.

By paying a police department to enforce it.

So you don't think the vast majority of people think that territorial defense is necessary? Then why to they currently vote to support it?

 

So how many is that?

Who pays the police department?

They don't vote to support it.

 

Look, the fact is that I oppose the idea of taxation on ethical grounds. I oppose most state action on ethical grounds, because it relies on the initiation of force. I would prefer a system of governance in which people voluntarily cooperate, rather than one in which a state exists and imposes taxes. Is it possible? I think so. Could we do it tomorrow? Of course not. Can I tell you every detail of how it might work? Of course not. Have people put forth ways it might work? Yes.

I also oppose geoism because to me it sounds like a government land grab.

I want the state to do and own as little as absolutely possible. If people decided they didn't could live without it and didn't need it at all, that would be fine with me. I want the government to preserve liberty and property. Anything else it does is suspect in my book.

 

Without the state, someone else would use force against them, the state is there to prevent that use of force. But offering that protection involves costs. So, under geoism, the state recoups those costs by charging the landowner a fee, at what the market offers, for their services. Try selling some land today without offering the buyer the assurance that the state will protect them, you won't get much … actually, you won't get anything. The same is true if government didn't exist. Nobody would buy land that they have to pay the entire cost of protecting … so without government, land losses all exchange value anyway, but the murder rate would skyrocket.

Don't pull that BS on me. The state pays me land rent directly, and makes others pay me land rent that I could not collect without privileges the state has granted me. The state does not own my land … I do … but I know that it is immoral, and it is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing up the economy for producers. I have said it before and I will say it again, land value taxation would not benefit me personally.

Under geoism every individual would get some land use for free. Those who take more than their share would pay, those who take less than their share would receive compensation. Private ownership of land caused the Irish potato famine, and countless other tragedies, and that is a system which I cannot get behind. History is very clear on the subject, when society allows private landowners to rule the roost, poverty and famine are sure to follow. Without exception.

That might fly with the more ignorant. I grew up around rich, fat, lazy landowners, some in my immediate family. I have worked hard for money and I have had money given to me via land rent, and I know the difference. It has absolutely nothing to do with how fit you are, it only matters how much government-issued privilege you hold. I have tasted poverty while witnessing the extravagant luxury that fat, lazy, landowners received without contributing anything … it was an experience that left me very bitter, and that I will never forgive or forget.

 

It's not their money. That's the whole point.

 

Whose is it?

 

I found myself in agreement with you up until the bolded. I object to it on the grounds of me being a sort of progressive myself, and neither being against geoism nor wanting a "huge nanny-state." Also, I don't think progressive economic ventures are so ridiculously expensive that a land value tax would never cover them. It is estimated that a land value tax would be able to generate about as much revenue as our taxes currently generate now, yes? Considering progressives want to cut spending towards things like defense, drug prohibition, and corporate welfare, which take up the majority of our current budget, we would surely have plenty of funds left to ensure that people are fed and educated, and that sick folks with no money aren't left for dead.

 

That money belongs to society as a whole. They are paying for the ability to exclusively claim a portion of the Earth. Now, we could just take the money and then write a check to everybody in the country. But that would be incredibly inefficient amd bureaucratic. And, then, we would still need taxes to fund the necessities of government. Or, we could just agree that the funds should go to a central organization, whether it be our current government or something different, and then be used to invest in the community.

 

I favor a system which has two methods of appraisal. The first method rests on the county appraisal. Pay what the county says you owe and the county secures tenure for you, no questions asked. If an individual does not like the counties appraisal then he/she can request an open market appraisal. Here is an example of how that open market appraisal would work:

I own a home which my insurance agents appraiser says is worth $100K, that is my property. The lady who works at the county courthouse writes down all the bids of anyone who comes in and wants tenure of the land under my home. My bid is $300 per month. Someone else is willing to pay $320 per month (in addition to paying me the $100K value of my home). At the end of the year, the county courthouse sends me an appraisal based upon the bids which it received. In this case the highest bid was $320 per month. That is what my monthly tax bill would be to maintain secure tenure. I now have a choice, either pay the $320 per month tax, or sell the home for $100K to the party which placed the higher bid.

Lets say that I don't want to pay the $320 per month tax. I go to county courthouse and place a bid on an acre of land on the outskirts of town, where farmers are only paying $24 per month in taxes on an acre of land. I offer $35 per month for an acre of that land, knowing that the farmer cannot afford to pay that much tax. If the farmer decides he cannot match my offer of taxation, then he stops paying the tax and I start paying what I offered, and tenure is transferred to me. I take the $100K that my home inside town sold for, and I hire a contractor to build a new home on my acre of land in the country. Now my tax bill is only $35 per month and I'm happy.

You might say that this sucks for the farmer, but remember, the only reason the farmer has the land in the first place is that his higher use of the land is what displaced the native Indians … now my higher use of the land will displace him. If it is fair that the native Indians where displaced to make way for his higher use of the land, then it is fair that he be displaced to make way for my higher use of the land.

Under-the-table dealings are a HUGE problem now. That is because government spending makes landowners richer, therefore, individuals have the incentive to bribe government to spend money near their landholdings. What could be better for a landowner than to have government build valuable infrastructure near his land; making land that was only worth $100K into land that is worth $500K, without the owner lifting a finger. As a landowner, I would gladly buy the city planner a new Cadillac Escolade, in exchange for his assurance that he will spend millions of dollars of the taxpayers money to make infrastructure improvements near my land.

Land value tax is a “use” tax. You pay the land tax for the right to use government services and connect your property to the publics infrastructure at that location. The police who work for the city, county, state or federal government respond to calls from addresses under their jurisdiction. Owning land within those jurisdictions is how you become eligible to call on those services. For people who rent an apartment this eligibility is extend to them by their landlord, and the benefits thereof are reflected in the rents he charges his tenants.

There are hundreds of skyscrapers in Hong Kong which are privately owned but are built on land which is publicly owned. All land in Hong Kong is publicly owned, while most buildings are privately owned. So that proves that your claim is false.

 

How do you determine the natural productivity of the land when a given parcel of land grows ten or more times the food it did just 100 years ago.

 

Apparently this picture is just my imagination, since there is no feasible way to own a building without owning the land the building sits on.

 

Actually what if proves is that they way they do things is insufficiently different than how they are done in the US to matter.

 

That is the the explanation. They're nuts.





​