Geoists are they nuts or what?

Do you consider the founder of the libertarian party to be a libertarian? Because that would be David Nolan who favored land value taxation as the only source of government revenue.

"What kind of taxation is least harmful?….My own preference is for a single tax on land, with landholders doing their own valuation; you'd state the price at which you'd be willing to sell your land, and pay taxes on that amount. Anyone (including the tax collector) who wanted to buy it at that price could do so. This is simple, fair, and minimizes government snooping into our lives and business."-- David Nolan (AZ) - founder of the LP

Do you consider the founding fathers libertarian? Because they also favored land value taxation as the only source of federal government revenue … they wrote it into the original Constitution of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

If YOU want to tax anything other than land value (or other government-issued privileges) then you are a government-redistribution-welfare-subsidy lover. Taxing the working people to provide infrastructure and services that makes landowners richer is not libertarian. True libertarians only support land value taxation.

"In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago." — Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in Economics (1976)

 

I hate that word geoist. It like somebody didn't know how to spell the word geologist right.

 

Thank you for sharing you opinion. Now, how do you feel about THE BANDIT?

THE BANDIT

Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.

A thief, right?

Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a license issued by the government of one of the countries -- or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment from those who use what nature provided, and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has a land title to the pass. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in "rent" for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his business really changed? It's all legal now, but he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return, just as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is he any different now that he is a landowner?

And how is any other landowner charging rent for what nature provided for free any different?

Do the merchants, by using the pass when they know the bandit is there, agree to be robbed?

If there were two, or three, or 300 passes, each with its own bandit, would the merchants' being at liberty to choose which bandit robs them makes the bandits' enterprise a competitive industry in a free market?

 

What they would is hire mercenaries to protect and escort them and hunt down the Bandits.

That's what they've done in modern history.

And I think there is a catch to this story, or that it's alluding to something. So what is it alluding to?

 

It is alluding to the fact that we all have an equal right to use what nature freely provided. Why should you or I pay some landowner for crude oil deposits that nature created millions of years ago? Why are only landowners entitled to benefit from what nature provided?

 

The State already owns all private property. If you fail to pay your property tax(rent) they will evict you, and sell your property at an auction to get their rent, uh, taxes. But it gets worse than that. The State owns your body, not you. No, you do not even own your own body. For if you eat or smoke something they say you cannot eat or smoke, they will lock you up in prison and punish the body that they own. You are State property, and you can never really own real estate property either. They allow you to rent it.

Now and everyone else works, to pay the taxes that builds the roads. So you should have a RIGHT to drive on what you paid for. But NO. The gov't will not give you that right, but they will give you a priviledge to use what you worked and paid for. This is reality.

 

Why should you own (and charge others rent to use) what nature freely provided? You have a rightful claim to what your labor creates. But why should you “own” what nature creates? What gives you the right to tell others that they cannot use what nature provided for them?

 

I have no answer for those questions. Bring a Cherokee Indian that is something I have an exceptionally hard time grasping.

On the other hand. why should you have the ability to just go on to somebody's property and just take what you want as well? Why can't a person have the right to their own property and why can't they own more stuff than another person? And why does another person have more value and deserve those things without working for them than the person who owns them?

 

If they don't wanna own property or patent their ideas, that's fine. As long as they don't come on my property they can do whatever the hell they want. It's a free country.

 

You should be glad there are laws. There is always gonna be someone more badass than you and they might take your stuff if there were no laws. Besides, Al Sharpton doesn't pay his taxes and I hate that horse's ass.

 

Within Libertarianism there is a wide spectrum, from Conservative Libertarians to Leftist Libertarians, and everything in between. Geolibertarianism happens to be somewhat of a branch of Libertarianism, that reconciles Libertarian ideals with communalistic fairness. "Georgism" of course is not exclusive to the Libertarian school of thought, it's really just a different economic approach.

 

Then that just proves you have more insight than most people.

You don't. But if they are depriving you of what nature provided then they own you compensation.

Suppose that 300 million people (every U.S. citizen) all want to "own" one specific parcel of land. Then suppose that government give that land to me, but under the condition that I pay $3000 per year in compensation. Government would then take that compensation and divide it equally between all members of society. I would get the land and others would get the compensation. If you take some land for your exclusive use, then you pay compensation, and I would get an equal share of that compensation.

Everyone would pay compensation for land which they hold exclusively and everyone would get some compensation in return. Those who own more than an equal share of land would pay more compensation then they receive, but they also get more land. Those who take very little land would get more compensation then they paid, but they would also get less land for their exclusive enjoyment.

In the end, if you take just an equal share of land for your personal enjoyment or profit, then the compensation you receive will pay all the compensation you owe to others. Everyone gets equal benefit from what nature provided, some get more land and less compensation while other get more compensation but less land … but everyone gets to benefit equally from what nature provided.

 

Bull****! Libertarian is a political party with a specific platform. If you would read the platform you might have a clue what you are talking about. Go peddle your lies somewhere else.

 

Here is the libertarian platform on government finance and spending:

http://www.lp.org/platform#2.4

It says that libertarians support abolishing the income tax, which is also a geolibertarian ideal. The platform says nothing about what should be taxed in order to provide funding for government. So, I suggest you take your own advice and “go peddle your lies somewhere else”.

Land titles are themselves a form of government - bureaucratic- meddling in the market … what could be more fair than to tax those who directly BENEFIT from that government bureaucracy?

Even a small government needs funding … exactly whose property do you plan to confiscate in order to supply that funding? Be specific now.