You make a good point, but you don't understand it. The reason it takes two incomes now is that LANDOWNERS are taking the additional income in higher rents and MORTGAGE LENDERS in higher interest payments. The additional TAXES that the two-income family pay are given to LANDOWNERS in the form of public services and infrastructure, ACCESS to which the landowner owns, and charges others full market value for.
Two Questions: Is the burden of proof on the normal person, who believes that its okay to use something that no one else is using as long as there is no evidence that anyone else owns it, to prove that some land has not been stolen, or is the burden of proof on the Georgist to prove the outlandish accusation that every inhabited square inch on the globe is occupied by recipients of stolen property? Who should define terms used in a discussion, the speaker, or the Georgist?
Why do you want to steal from those who produce? Perhaps to give to those who do not....? Your proposal would just increase the repair bills the poor would pay, as people would keep old cars running longer (prices of used items would increase, as their supply is by definition fixed). Decent enough employment program for auto mechanics and other repair people, but don't pretend it has anything to do with helping the poor.
You are making things up. No one has suggested it is not OK to use something no one else is using. That is what our ancestors did to survive for millions of years. But that is not what you want to do. You want to FORCIBLY DEPRIVE OTHERS OF THEIR NATURAL LIBERTY to use it, liberty which they would have if you did not remove it by force. How can you deprive others of their liberty to use what nature provided for all without stealing that liberty? I neither call nor consider myself a Georgist. That is indeed an outlandish accusation, which is presumably why you made it up. What could never have validly been property in the first place can't be stolen property. It is not those who inhabit land who deal in stolen property, but those who FORCIBLY EXCLUDE OTHERS from it without making just compensation to the community of those thus excluded. And just FYI, people being accustomed to an injustice is not evidence that it is not an injustice. For ordinary words, the dictionary. For technical terms, whoever makes their definitions clearest and most illuminating.
No, consumption taxes are indefensible atrocities contrary to the entire purpose of all economic activity. Why do you want to punish and rob producers? Perhaps to give to non-producers....? It's a ridiculous tax, one of the few that is actually worse than income tax.
Oh, so you don't think the speaker should define the terms the speaker uses? Yeah, you're not gonna be able to understand anyone that way. Without understanding anyone you converse with, you won't be able to reason with anyone. I like rational people. Good luck.
I still haven't been able to determine what you consider legitimate means of appropriation. Here you seem to be simultaneously supposing the legitimacy and illegitimacy of homesteading as a means of appropriation, that it's legitimate for aboriginals and illegitimate for Europeans, but then you didn't define homesteading either. You also still seem to consider sovereignty claims made by governments legitimate even though they have the same effect as ownership, are arbitrary and less empirically verifiable than homesteading(other than any large scale violence needed to dedicate them), and swallow up more land by orders of magnitude than any homesteading claim ever has.
THE SOURCE OF MINERAL RIGHTS I have given an historical argument as to why aboriginals have a right to a homeland that is just and adequate. I doubt, however, that is the case today in either the US, Canada or Australia. Homesteading is the act of "occupying a non-appropriated piece of land and thus appropriating it" by establishing fixtures and buildings upon the property's surface. Homesteading is thus the right to occupy the "surface of the land" and establish ownership. That's fine. ABOUT SUB-SURFACE MINERAL RIGHTS I am also stating, however, that the US is wrong to think that mineral rights can be acquired in the same manner - and it is the only nation on earth to do so. The reason for that is the very fact that any ownership value as regards minerals (and by this I include petrochemicals) is impossible to predetermine adequately because said mineral-ownership does not necessarily have any relation to the boundaries of the homestead property on the surface. If an oil deposit is indeed found, it is difficult to estimate the geographical extent of the deposit. (I admit I am no expert in the matter of discovering oil/gas deposits.) So, it is the state that should be the owner of all below-surface mineral rights and determine, according to whoever discovered the resource, who is allowed to exploit it. Having first paid a royalty-right based upon volume of production for that exploitation and then selling the produce to the open-market. The above was not jurisprudential thinking in the 19th century when mineral-rights were an important aspect of the Industrial Revolution. Thus, true "ownership" of any property extends only to surface rights. In that manner, the underground wealth of any land-mass belongs to the "nation of people" who inhabit said land-mass; which to me seems proper and fitting. The right to exploit the subsurface wealth of the nation is then licensed to "developers" who pay a license-fee. ON ANOTHER MORE POLITICAL BENT The US - in its mindless search for money, money, money by means of mineral wealth - had got it all wrong. Along with Russia that stole the mineral rights from the Russian people and literally "surrendered " them to today's Russian oligarchs. Of course, abracadabra, as of November 8th, Russia and Uncle Sam will be the "best-of-buddies". I can't wait to see on TV Putin visiting Donald Dork in the White house. Putin's wealth (hidden because it is supervised by his daughter, married to an oligarch that runs a national bank) is estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars. (For more on that subject, start here.) No wonder he wanted Donald Dork to win the presidency and perhaps used illicit means to help him attain the position. They are birds-of-a-feather. Obama was right to mistrust Putin, as is evident today in Syria ...
Yeah, there's no good reason to assume that homesteading the surface also gives one a legitimate right to everything underneath. So, you see statist claims to sovereignty as legitimate, but then you're surprised and upset when they exploit the millions of cubic miles of earth they appropriated by decree for their own enrichment?
We The People have inalienable rights there is no 'agreement' with 'government.' Government has a DUTY to provide safety from foreign invasion. Land ownership in the U.S. is a bundle of rights describing land usage. Those rights of usage are not a 'privilege' they are rights that can be transferred by the owner or owners of those rights. Government can take land through condemnation, eminent domain or escheat which all have specific laws, procedures and guidelines that have to be met. I think you may have it a bit backward.
You wrote more than once that the land is owned by the person who offers to pay the highest land tax. That completely destroys your concept - which is nothing more than eminent domain for anyone who has the money. Nobody will build because after they spend the time, money, effort to build then someone can just step in and offer a higher land tax. Whoever owns the land owns whats on the land. Your "concept" is a total farce.
Alright, so an example of a "statist claim to sovereignty" would be Ponce de Leon stepping onto the American continent for the first time in his life, and yelling "I claim this land in the name of Spain". History books tell us that "Since he had discovered this country of lavish landscape and beautiful beaches, he was entitled to name it. He named it La Florida". The historians don't try to explain how discovering something one doesn't even know the size or shape of gives one the right to name it or claim it in the name of anyone. The historians also tell us that he and the colonists with him were later driven off the continent they had "discovered", "named", and "claimed" by the people who were already living there, and they also don't try to explain how one can be the first to discover a place where other people already live. Another example of a "statist claim to sovereignty" would be a bill passed by the US congress claiming sovereignty over an area looking more like the 170,304 square kilometers(including a cone shape beginning at the described surface borders and vanishing at the center of Earth's core) that we call "Florida" now. The differences between Juan "Ponce"'s claim and that act of congress are that they wrote theirs down on paper and they had already violently subdued the second comers(Spanish claimants) who had already violently subdued the first comers(indigenous people). There is no difference in legitimacy between the two claims at all, not in principle(writing down an arbitrary claim doesn't make it any more legitimate) or in practice(Juan's claim was regarded as equally "legitimate" to that of the US's 16th congress). Even most contract law doesn't presume a difference between a written and oral contract other than that one is more provable(which helps in the event of a dispute and is completely irrelevant otherwise), but it does presume that one cannot impart, by contract or any other means, what one does not own. Shouting words into the air, writing them on paper, and violent suppression of inhabitants are not, each or altogether, legitimate ways to establish ownership or sovereignty(which is effective ownership). Every state on the planet was established in exactly this way, either by decreeing sovereignty over an area for the "first time", or by accepting or wresting sovereignty from a monarch, the claim of whom was equally arbitrary and illegitimate. Every union and federation on the planet has been established by those illegitimately established states. Are you beginning to understand what I mean by this, "So, you see statist claims to sovereignty as legitimate, but then you're surprised and upset when they[those holding seats in those states and federations] exploit the millions of cubic miles of earth[surface and subterranean] they[those who established the states and federations] appropriated by decree[shouting words or writing them on paper] for their[those holding the seats] own enrichment?" , now?
The plan is absurd is essentially allowing whoever pays the biggest bribe to government to steal anyone else's home or property - nothing else.
UNITED STATES Did it ever occur to you that if the rest of the world is of the same opinion regarding mineral rights, and that the US is the only nation on earth that is the direct opposite, then a real examination of the nature of mineral rights is worth considering in the US? (As I pointed out, the evolution of mineral rights was not elaborated just yesterday.) Which is exactly what I presented to you when I pointed out that whereas there are boundaries on the surface that determine ownership, that none exist below the surface on the size of any given mineral or gas or liquid. Because the same extent of "ownership" cannot be either assessed or determined below the surface. Ipso facto, the state must own the rights, and allow all comers to retrieve those underground assets at a predetermined "fee" for the right to do so. EUROPE You are also welcome to read the history mineral rights in Europe, here. You will be surprised to learn that the US, upon independence, copied European rights, meaning the Lord of the land was owner of the mineral rights. And anyone having homesteaded the land was its "Lord". However, in Europe, as it moved towards democracy finally shifted mineral rights to the central government from either the monarchs or the local Princes. But the US never changed its law regarding mineral-rights. Ask yourself why? (Because certain interests - that is, the original landowners - were very keen to keep the Wealth that ownership of the land accrued to them.) The royal aristocracy of Europe was divested of its right to own mineral properties as Europe shifted from Kingdoms to democracies. The US never made that same move, because upon independence there was no monarchy, so de facto property rights also therefore included mineral rights. Even though, some might have thought that mineral rights should belong to the national government. But, that distinction was never made. Which does not mean that it should not be made. It just came to be considered a matter of ownership of the surface property rights and nobody bothered to question it ... But, please, keep to yourself this gibberish: Whatever it means ...
All you talk about is mineral rights. I invite you into a discussion about rights qua property rights, a concept for which you would need to establish a coherent theory before you can make any meaningful pronouncements on mineral rights, and you're completely lost. I don't care about anything you have to say about mineral rights until you can tell me how property rights can be established in the first place.
I have also written many times, over many years, that I advocate for owner assessment as a solution to disputes against government employed assessors. I want government assessment, but for those owners who dispute that assessment, I want to supplement the system with owner assessment which is open to market competition. If an owner takes the government assessment without complaint, then all he has to do is pay his land taxes and the land is his. In addition, I support a system whereby the government will sell the option of a fixed rate of taxation for a fixed number of years. In this case the buyer of the land could pay all his taxes up front for a fixed number of years and he could thereafter live COMPLETELY tax free for the duration of that contract.
It isn't about helping the poor, it's about raising tax dollars from non-essentials. It would be effectively a voluntary tax.
I don't understand a state submitting to private arbitration as a possibility in the actual world, but that would have to happen for what you describe here to take place. Can you provide an example from anywhere in the world or anywhere in history of this ever having happened?
I don't care about producers, because there is already enough stuff in the world to house and clothe every last one of us several times over.
So you are upset that I want to introduce competition to the land market? That is, after all, what I am advocating for. Are you afraid of competition? If you are, then you need not worry, because there is a LOT of land, and with government collecting the rent as a replacement for other taxes, the rich will have no desire to take more than an insignificant amount of it. In fact, land value taxation would open up millions of acres of land that could be held completely free of purchase price or taxation, COMPLETELY FREE, for those who are willing to live on small acreage, low valued land parcels.
Many years ago I watched a documentary hosted by John Stossel (or at least he was on the documentary) where a European country required each property owner to do his own assessment for tax purposes. The caveat was, that the assessment was essentially a selling offer. If property owners tried to cheat the taxing authority by under assessment of the value of their property, they risked someone buying it from them for less than they actually believed it was worth. I want to make clear that I do not support property taxes. I do support land value tax.
