Daily Reminder:

Daily Reminder:

Taxation is Theft!

Other urls found in this thread:

geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

But the 10% that comes back as healthcare and roads and other goods is worth it.

Income tax is theft. Other taxes are ok

fuck off and move into the woods then, or Somalia

All tax is theft. Still should be done taxes though

All tax is theft. Still should be some taxes though *

we will always be taxed at the same/increasing amount, if income tax is gone it will be redistributed to somewhere else

...

I have more of a problem of taxation itself, treating money as if it isnt property and it needs to be given to the gubbamint in order for services to be provided

Yeah it might be theft but we need to set up society somehow.
To me it makes the most sense to collect a single land value tax since it would only adversely effect the rent seeking class and its unearned wealth

>its ok to GTK, just don't tax them

90% of millionares are jewish

Stop being a shill. Property taxes and taxes on the working class have got to go, but I have no problem taking back from the (((userers)))

And i have a problem with land itself being treated as money/capital

No one created it after all

Daily reminder that everyone ITT has the responsibility to pay it forward for the community via taxes.

As a neet I shouldn't have to work, you should subsidize my food and Healthcare through your taxes.

What Is Geolibertarianism?

Geolibertarians are simply libertarians who take the principle of self-ownership to its logical conclusion: Just as the right to one's self implies the right to the fruit of one's labor (i.e., the right to property), the right to the fruit of one's labor implies the right to labor, and the right to labor implies the right to labor -- somewhere. Hence John Locke's proviso that one has "property" in land only to the extent that there is "enough, and as good left in common for others." When there is not, land begins to have rental value. Thus, the rental value of land reflects the extent to which Locke's proviso has been violated, thereby making community-collection of rent, or CCR, a just and necessary means of upholding the Lockean principle of private property. In the late 19th century CCR was known as the "Single Tax" -- a term that was (and is) used to denote Henry George's proposal to abolish all taxes save for a single "tax" on the value of land, irrespective of the value of improvements in or on it.

"When we tax houses, crops, money, furniture, capital or wealth in any of its forms, we take from individuals what rightfully belongs to them. We violate the right of property, and in the name of the State commit robbery. But when we tax ground values, we take from individuals what does not belong to them, but belongs to the community, and which cannot be left to individuals without robbery of other individuals" (George, The Single Tax: What It Is and Why We Urge It, p. 6).

Yes. That's the fucking idea you autistic
Income tax is cancer

But Doesn't A "Tax" on Land Value Violate The Right to Property?

No. Private property derives its moral justification from the right of the individual to the fruits of his or her labor; but unlike houses, machinery, clothes, etc., land is (1) not the fruit of anyone's labor, (2) in fixed supply, and (3) the literal foundation upon which any exercise of individual liberty must take place. Thus, while there is a right to private possession of land, the right to possession must be limited by the equal right of others.

Consider the alternative. If only some individuals "own" the earth, then only some have a right to live upon it. Consequently, those who do not own land do not have a right to the fruits of their own labor, since they are obligated at birth to pay title-holders a certain percentage of their earnings for mere access to the planet, as if title-holders are responsible for the earth's very existence. It is thus private collection of rent, or PCR, that violates the right to property.

PCR is made possible when the State grants land-titles to a fraction of the population, thereby giving that fraction devices with which to levy tolls on the fruits of everyone else's labor. Since these tolls are levied in exchange for a "service" (access to valuable land) that said fraction did nothing to provide, PCR is literally an entitlement scheme, i.e., a State-sanctioned transfer payment from those who produce to those who do not produce. In his essay, "The God's Lookout," Albert Jay Nock (author of Our Enemy, the State) explains how this particular form of welfare conflicts with the principles of laissez faire capitalism:

"This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour -- nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times....People began to say, perhaps naturally, if this is what state absentation comes to, let us have some State intervention.

"But the State had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly, -- the landlord's monopoly of economic rent, -- thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into the factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labour market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus." [Emphasis Nock's]

...

...

This is why merely reducing the size of government is not enough. In the late 19th century we had virtually everything that most libertarians of today claim they are fighting for -- a tax and regulatory burden much lower than what we have now. Yet despite that fact, there was still an alarming rate of poverty amidst vast concentrations of wealth and privilege. And as Nock pointed out, this was due not to natural causes, but to the concentrated ownership of "economic rent."

Thus, to secure a truly free and prosperous society, we must recognize and uphold both the exclusive right of each individual to the fruits of his or her labor, and the equal right of all individuals to the use of land. Abolishing taxes on production will uphold the former, while CCR will uphold the latter. Both Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, in whose names the Libertarian Party bestows awards, held essentially the same view:

"Men did not make the earth.... It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." (Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice, paragraphs 11 to 15)

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of [landed] property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed" (Thomas Jefferson, The Republic of Letters, p. 390).

But Doesn't a Tax on Land Value Drive Up the Price of Land?

No, just the reverse. In order for a tax to drive up the price of something, it must either decrease supply or increase demand. Does the land value tax (LVT) decrease the supply of land? No, because the supply of land is fixed. Thus, the only way it can increase the price is by increasing demand. Yet not even those who oppose the LVT argue that it increases demand, so it follows that the LVT does not increase the price of land, since it neither decreases supply nor increases demand.

In fact, it actually lowers the price of land by reducing the amount of rent that can be capitalized into a sale price. Expressed in mathematical terms, the price of land p equals the annual rent r divided by the interest rate i, or:

p = r / i

If there is a tax rate t on the price of land p, then p equals the rent divided by the sum of the interest rate and the offsetting tax rate, or:

p = r / (i + t)

Thus, if the rent is $1,000, the interest rate is 10%, and the tax rate 40%, then the price would be 1,000/(.10 + .40), or $2,000. Without the tax, the price would be 80% higher -- $10,000. This is why there is no long term benefit to cutting the LVT, because people in general, and the working poor in particular, end up paying back in higher rents and land prices what they presumably get from the tax cut. (Click here to see a recent example of this.)

Unfortunately, because the "property" tax fuses the tax on land value with the tax on improvements, people have a tendency to equate one with the other, and thus falsely assume that a lower tax on land value yields the same benefits as a lower tax on improvements. It in fact has the opposite effect. A lower tax on improvements rewards people for putting land to productive use, which means more jobs and higher wages; a lower tax on land value rewards people for holding land out of use, which means less jobs and lower wages.

Where Do Other Libertarians Stand On The Taxation of Land Value?
Some support the LVT, others oppose it, while still others remain undecided. In terms of divisiveness, the only issue that rivals this one is abortion. What Libertarians for Life is to the abortion issue, the Thomas Paine Caucus (TPC) is to the land issue. Click here to see the TPC's latest proposal to the platform committee of the Libertarian Party (LP).
While those within the libertarian movement (of which the LP is a part) who support the LVT are not in the majority, they are, nevertheless, a considerable minority that appears to be growing. Among those who support the LVT -- either as an instrument of justice or as the "least harmful" tax -- are:

*changes nothing with his edgy "statement"*
*grabs diet coke* *faps to sh0ta*

Debbie Clark, life member, LP;

Fred Foldvary, professor of economics, author, and LP candidate for U.S. Congress, 2000;
Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate economist;
Paul E. Gagnon, founder, LP of Fairfax County, Virginia, and LP candidate for Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, 1999;
Lorenzo Gaztanaga, former chair, LP of Maryland, LP candidate for Baltimore City Council, 1999, and current member, Libertarian National Committee (LNC);
Lois Kaneshiki, former chair, LP of Pennsylvania (PA), and former At-Large member, LNC;
Harold Kyriazi, author, LP candidate for PA Senate, 1998, and current vice chair, LP of Pittsburgh;
Russell Means, American Indian activist, author, actor, and speaker at the 2000 LP national convention;
Brian Mulholland, member, LP of California (CA);
David Nolan, LP founder, and LP candidate for U.S. Congress, 2000;
Wayne Parker, former chair, LP of Louisiana, former chair, LP of Mississippi, and LP candidate for U.S. Congress, 2000 & 2002;
Ron Rosenberger, LP candidate for PA Senate, 1998;
Dan Sullivan, former chair, LP of Pittsburgh, PA, and successful lobbyist for "split rate" property tax reform in various localities throughout PA;
Chris Toto, former chair, LP of Mercer County, NJ; and
Todd Altman, life member, LP, and author of this web site.

Ever heard of homesteading?

Dude free stuff lmao, like, paying to use a house by living in it???? lmao literally leeching

I don't really mind if corrupt govt steals half of my income and redistributes it among lazy people and illegal aliens....so long as I can pop happy pills and watch TV all day.

No. Private property derives its moral justification from the right of the individual to the fruits of his or her labor; but unlike houses, machinery, clothes, etc., land is (1) not the fruit of anyone's labor, (2) in fixed supply, and (3) the literal foundation upon which any exercise of individual liberty must take place. Thus, while there is a right to private possession of land, the right to possession must be limited by the equal right of others.

The rich don't need roads to do business.

>land is (1) not the fruit of anyone's labor,
Yes, but generally what we refer to as property is the result of improving said land (homesteading) i.e. farming in it, building a house on it, taking care of the area etc.

> (2) in fixed supply
This isn't an argument

>(3) the literal foundation upon which any exercise of individual liberty must take place. Thus, while there is a right to private possession of land, the right to possession must be limited by the equal right of others.
There is plenty of "unimproved" land that is suitable for habitation, particularly if you admit one loses the property of something he abandons (i.e. land he does not take care of).

Huh, TIL, all the rich people's industry-created goods do not need any roads of any kind to be moved around.

Why don't you join these people who are actually creating a physical anarchocapitalist community?

Read this: www.memeticprincipalityofkek.club/index.php?msg=1;topic=1.0

and then this: www.memeticprincipalityofkek.club/index.php?topic=40.msg269

>generally what we refer to as property is the result of improving said land

this is the problem

According to royal libertarians, land becomes private property when one mixes one's labor with it. And mixing what is yours with what is not yours in order to own the whole thing is considered great sport. But the notion is filled with problems. How much labor does it take to claim land, and how much land can one claim for that labor? And for how long can one make that claim?

According to classical liberals, land belonged to the user for as long as the land was being used, and no longer. But according to royal libertarians, land belongs to the first user, forever. So, do the oceans belong to the heirs of the first person to take a fish out or put a boat in? Does someone who plows the same field each year own only one field, while someone who plows a different field each year owns dozens of fields? Should the builder of the first transcontinental railroad own the continent? Shouldn't we at least have to pay a toll to cross the tracks? Are there no common rights to the earth at all? To royal libertarians there are not, but classical liberals recognized that unlimited ownership of land never flowed from use, but from the state:

A right of property in movable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands not till after that establishment.... He who plants a field keeps possession of it till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated and their owner protected in his possession. Till then the property is in the body of the nation.

--Thomas Jefferson

>But according to royal libertarians, land belongs to the first user, forever

I specifically noted this.

>And mixing what is yours with what is not yours in order to own the whole thing is considered great sport
There's a distinction between "not owned by anyone" and "owned by someone", and you're trying to muddle it to make a poor point.

>How much labor does it take to claim land, and how much land can one claim for that labor? And for how long can one make that claim?

These are valid questions, but they don't invalidate the whole thing.

Holyshit this shilling

>There's a distinction between "not owned by anyone" and "owned by someone", and you're trying to muddle it to make a poor point.


But we're used to it

A favorite excuse of royal libertarians is that the land has been divided up for so long that tracing the rightful owners would be pointless. But there can be no rightful owners if we all have an inalienable right of access to the earth. It is not some ancient injustice we seek to rectify, but an ongoing injustice. The piece of paper granting title might be ancient, but the tribute levied on the landless goes on and on.
One might as well have accepted monarchy under the excuse that whatever conquest led to monarchy occurred centuries ago, and that tracing the rightful monarchs would be pointless. Indeed, landed aristocracy is the last remnant of monarchy.

>theft is good sometimes
I agree.

>royal libertarians
What even is this terminology

Also, I love how you keep on muddling by talking about "rightful owners" when I clearly defined what I consider as rightful - the actual USE and IMPROVEMENT of said land. Who owned it 5000 years ago is of no consequence.

Did you look up what tragedy of the commons means yet Georgeposter?

You can reply without quoting an essay, I believe in you!

He is correct in a way. You wouldn't really be a libertarian if you took land of people that didn't use it or improve it.

That being said, heavy government involvement would be needed to divide up common land if there were no owners.

Did you?

In their search for excuses to deny any common right to land, royal libertarians are fond of citing Garrett Hardin's work, "Tragedy of the Commons." Or at least they cite the title, which is all most royal libertarians are familiar with. Hardin is himself an advocate of land value taxation, and has criticized misinterpretations of his work with the lament that "The title of my 1968 paper should have been `The Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons.'" [Emphasis Hardin's]

geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

this is what im shit posting from; Id love to keep on going but unforutanly ive got to get to work so i can pay my landlord for the privilege of living

Yes, and you haven't.

How many times do I have to tell you that Garrett Hardin did not invent the term. William Forster Lloyd did.

The tragedy of the commons was the protestant state seizing the land property of the Catholic Church

You realise you're a total cunt, right?

Weve been over this haven't we? Hardins work is the more popular version and basically the same

>You wouldn't really be a libertarian if you took land of people that didn't use it or improve it.
It's not theirs if they abandoned it years ago, as simple as that. If I abandoned a car in the middle of nowhere and left it to rot for 20 years I don't exactly own it anymore

...

>so i can pay my landlord for the privilege of living
no, it's so you can keep using the house he has paid to either build or to buy from someone who built it in the first place, and who is maintaining it.

Maybe in your specific interpretation of the term.

Except Lloyd didn't call for management of the commons.

Plus you still have to rectify this with libertarianism. Who manages the commons without massive government intervention.

Private ownership of land may not be fair, I agree. But it's the best system available to us.

If I don't live in or rent out my house for a year, should it and the land around it be taken from me?

Prove me wrong. FACT: It would not have happened if the reformation never happened.

Taxation implies that the (((government))) has a higher claim on the fruits of your labor than you do.

Taxation implies that the (((government))) has a higher claim on your property than you do.

Taxation implies that the (((government))) has a higher claim on your investments than you do.

Taxation implies that the (((government))) has a higher claim your body than you do.

Taxation implies that the (((government))) has a higher claim on your time than you do.

If you don't pay taxes, the (((government))) comes to kidnap you. If you defend yourself, they kill you.

All taxation is enforced at gunpoint. Taxation is extortion.

>Prove me wrong
Just look at your previous post.

>It would not have happened if the reformation never happened
So you don't think the notion of common property could exist if the protestants took away land from the catholics?

The problem happens in communes all the time.

Were communes caused by protestants taking land away from catholics?

What did catholics do with confiscated protestant land in catholic countries?

It is so.