ECONOMIC RENT!
I think I read a few threads about this. First question would be...
Who gets to go around collecting this tax? And are they going to use violence to do it?
Don't bother responding if you haven't used the search function. It'd be pretty redundant
as this has been discussed in depth. Look for BenTucker.
if people appropriate so much land themselves that there is not enough left for an equal share to others, then they violate the rights of those others, and those others are entitled to compensation, this compensation being an equal share of the value of the land.than it is not an initiation of force but defensive force against the guy who had initiated force against all those people he is depriving of equal use of land.
I think I read a few threads about this. First question would be...
Who gets to go around collecting this tax? And are they going to use violence to do it?
Don't bother responding if you haven't used the search function. It'd be pretty redundant
as this has been discussed in depth. Look for BenTucker.
I'll bite. Since I recently got an objectivist to admit you don't own property the same way you own your pocket it must be meant to be.
Yes, they would use violence if necessary, however, if it is stipulated that:Quoteif people appropriate so much land themselves that there is not enough left for an equal share to others, then they violate the rights of those others, and those others are entitled to compensation, this compensation being an equal share of the value of the land.than it is not an initiation of force but defensive force against the guy who had initiated force against all those people he is depriving of equal use of land.
I think I read a few threads about this. First question would be...
Who gets to go around collecting this tax? And are they going to use violence to do it?
Don't bother responding if you haven't used the search function. It'd be pretty redundant
as this has been discussed in depth. Look for BenTucker.
than it is not an initiation of force but defensive force against the guy who had initiated force against all those people he is depriving of equal use of land.
Property tax is restitution?!?!?I think I read a few threads about this. First question would be...
Who gets to go around collecting this tax? And are they going to use violence to do it?
Don't bother responding if you haven't used the search function. It'd be pretty redundant
as this has been discussed in depth. Look for BenTucker.
Yeah, I saw Ben Tucker's posts, but they seemed pretty incoherent to me. As I said, I am not defending this position, but merely explaining it.
As for who collects this "tax." Firstly, why call it a tax? The justification of it is not to enforce some positive right, but to compensate for the violation of rights. It is not a "tax," it is restitution. You calculate the value of the land, and divide it by everybody in existence, to find out what an equal share is. Anybody that has more than this amount owes the excess to those that have less.
Secondly, I don't see why, in theory at least, it requires a state to collect it. A state is an institution of that monopolises the legitimate use of force. The legitimate use of force, in this argument, includes collecting compensation from people, and providing it to those it is owed to. A state does not exist, and so anarchy does exist, when there is no monopoly of the legitimate use of force, but, instead, competition in providing legitimate force. The question of whether collecting and distributing compensation for excessive appropriation is a legitimate use of force is an entirely different question from the question of who gets to use legitimate force, whether it should be monopolised by a single agency, or whether their should be free entry into the service of providing it.
If you don't own the space you occupy you don't own yourself. As the libertarian ethical system is derived from the axiom of self-ownership, there's absolutely nothing libertarian about Geolibertarianism.
Property tax is restitution?!?!?
Property tax is restitution?!?!?
No, a tax is revenue for a government. This theory is saying that those who appropriate a more than equal share of land should be forced to pay restitution to those who thus have a less than equal share.
We've been over this a million times: bringing something into the human economy is an act of labor, even if all it involves is pointing at an asteroid and saying: "No one claimed it yet? Well then, this is mine!" In order to own anything substantial in a free society, your ownership claim must be clearly defined and publicly announced, which in of itself is a valuable service for the economy. Now an asteroid mining company can learn of this asteroid and consider buying it from you, and going forward they would be the most likely market entity to look for new asteroids themselves - they're paying you for their failure to do so. Reasonable industry standards can be established for what does and does not constitute a legitimate claim. Etc.
Go peddle your Georgist communism somewhere else, m'kay?
Property tax is restitution?!?!?
No, a tax is revenue for a government. This theory is saying that those who appropriate a more than equal share of land should be forced to pay restitution to those who thus have a less than equal share.
Property tax is restitution?!?!?
No, a tax is revenue for a government. This theory is saying that those who appropriate a more than equal share of land should be forced to pay restitution to those who thus have a less than equal share.
Property tax is restitution?!?!?
No, a tax is revenue for a government. This theory is saying that those who appropriate a more than equal share of land should be forced to pay restitution to those who thus have a less than equal share.
Of course, you'll need a large, powerful government to enforce this scheme. Oh, wait. We're there already!
Property tax is restitution?!?!?
No, a tax is revenue for a government. This theory is saying that those who appropriate a more than equal share of land should be forced to pay restitution to those who thus have a less than equal share.
you warranted my animosity at "forced to pay"...
the "forcers" should be refused, repelled, and destroyed forever...
enjoy!
Sorry, but repelling people and destroying them means using force. How can you be against force and in favour of it at the same time?
Sorry, but repelling people and destroying them means using force. How can you be against force and in favour of it at the same time?
defensive force is welcome, warranted, and appropriate...
to wit:
your hand, once placed in my pocket...will most certainly NOT be returned...and you will NOT be a happy camper...
your body, once trespassing in or upon my property/home...will most certainly NOT survive...as fence-jumping, door-kicking trespassers are most often of ill-intent...
and now that we fully understand each other...
Property tax is restitution?!?!?
No, a tax is revenue for a government. This theory is saying that those who appropriate a more than equal share of land should be forced to pay restitution to those who thus have a less than equal share.
Of course, you'll need a large, powerful government to enforce this scheme. Oh, wait. We're there already!
Firstly, I don't see why a government would be needed to do this. Secondly, though, so what?
Government literally means control, which means force.
If you don't have a way to force people to pay, there's no problem.
Then I just wouldn't pay.
You'd also need a fuckin' assload of bureaucrats to keep track of who owes whom and how much.
And the "so what?" part? Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and if you like this government, then bully for you, because
we all have to live with it. Not a problem for you though, so long as your "team" is in power, right?
Firstly, I don't see why a government would be needed to do this. Secondly, though, so what?
Government literally means control, which means force.
Nonsense. Government is force, but tyhat doesn't mean force is government. Not everything that uses force is a government. A girl protecting herself from rape is not a government, even though she uses force against a rapist.QuoteIf you don't have a way to force people to pay, there's no problem.
Then I just wouldn't pay.
You'd also need a fuckin' assload of bureaucrats to keep track of who owes whom and how much.
Not really. All you need is some way for people to prove that they have given what they owe, and so that they are entitled to protection against anybody that may force them to give more.QuoteAnd the "so what?" part? Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and if you like this government, then bully for you, because
we all have to live with it. Not a problem for you though, so long as your "team" is in power, right?
"This government?" Which government?
Again, this has all been hashed through before. You aren't adding anything new, and I have nothing more to contribute to this
thread.
Good luck with your utopia, though. Hope it works out for you.
You presumably wouldn't think, if a girl that didn't want sex got beat up by a rapist that it would be admissable for him to say, "it was self-defense, guv, she kept trying to fight me off!"
Again, this has all been hashed through before. You aren't adding anything new, and I have nothing more to contribute to this
thread.
Good luck with your utopia, though. Hope it works out for you.
Well, as I said at the beginning of the thread, I am not a geolibertarian, I only think that Ziggy's account on the show was not accurate.
We've been over this a million times: bringing something into the human economy is an act of labor, even if all it involves is pointing at an asteroid and saying: "No one claimed it yet? Well then, this is mine!" In order to own anything substantial in a free society, your ownership claim must be clearly defined and publicly announced, which in of itself is a valuable service for the economy. Now an asteroid mining company can learn of this asteroid and consider buying it from you, and going forward they would be the most likely market entity to look for new asteroids themselves - they're paying you for their failure to do so. Reasonable industry standards can be established for what does and does not constitute a legitimate claim. Etc.
If I claim an asteroid, and then you claim the same asteroid, either magically "this is mine" stops being an act of labor once its been done once, or you can "labor-own" my asteroid, in which I will say "this is mine, time infinity, plus 1", and my labor shall spring eternal and I shall always own the asteroid. |
This is the same dodgy, arbitrary ground intellectual property rights stand on. |
What you described is Mutalism, not geoanarchism (or geolibertarianism.)
What you described is Mutalism, not geoanarchism (or geolibertarianism.)
Mutualism is a form of market socialism under which goods are produced by worker-owned firms and sold on a labour-for-labour basis, using labour notes. The mutualist movement was started by a group of co-operativists in Lyon, where Proudhon discovered them, and took the name for his own position. Modern variants suggest that, instead of using labour notes, "mutual banking" should be instituted that will ensure capital is attainable at zero, or nearabouts, rate of interest, encouraging competition, so that prices fall to their labour cost of production.
I don't see how what I said was geolibertarianism bears any similarity to what to mutualism as described above.
What you described is Mutalism, not geoanarchism (or geolibertarianism.)
Mutualism is a form of market socialism under which goods are produced by worker-owned firms and sold on a labour-for-labour basis, using labour notes. The mutualist movement was started by a group of co-operativists in Lyon, where Proudhon discovered them, and took the name for his own position. Modern variants suggest that, instead of using labour notes, "mutual banking" should be instituted that will ensure capital is attainable at zero, or nearabouts, rate of interest, encouraging competition, so that prices fall to their labour cost of production.
I don't see how what I said was geolibertarianism bears any similarity to what to mutualism as described above.
Sounds like
a great way to avoid creating wealth, nearly a zero-sum game,
with the state-corporate managers raking in the greatest amount of goodies (all for the public good, of course!)
What does? Mutualism, or geolibertarianism?
If you don't own the space you occupy you don't own yourself. As the libertarian ethical system is derived from the axiom of self-ownership, there's absolutely nothing libertarian about Geolibertarianism.
So if I take a pair of rocket pants to Juipiter, since I'm the only one on Jupiter, do I own all of jupiter? Do I own 1 metre radius around my body? 10 metres?
Or do i just own whatever proportion of the population is, so if there were 2 people on jupiter, I would on half, etc.
Self ownership is no kind of proof or support for land ownership.
I have not heard one decent explanation for how land ownership.
Sure, trading your wealth for land is logically consistent with self ownership, but that assumes there is some logical manner for land to be owned in the first place.
All I've heard is finders-keepers, and people who think no land can be owned, only some sort of using rights.
Although finders-keepers is arbitrary as shit, I'll go with it till I come across a better way of dealing with land ownership.
If all land is appropriated [...] |
If you can make Jupiter useful, you own Jupiter, yes. |
That cannot possibly happen. There is no end in sight to human ingenuity of using existing resources more efficiently to provide greater value to more people, and there is no end in sight to how huge the universe is and all the resources contained therein. (If we do reach a cosmic limit a billion years from now, I will adjust my philosophy accordingly.)
underwater seasteads
No. We're talking about homesteading property from nature, which is finite. You can't xerox an asteroid!
But apparently you class the act of "homesteading" some sort of wealth creation. |
Here's why its as unfounded as IP. |
If another person goes to the same asteroid and goes through whatever process, we still have one asteroid, but now there is a dispute over ownership [...] |
If it truly is some objective act of property creation/valuation/ownership, then you shouldn't be able to steal it by doing the same process. Just as if I make a chair, you can make a chair, and we can both have chairs, likewise I can have a computer program, you can copy it, and we both have them.
Just as me making a copy of someones song doesn't steal the original song, conversely, if what you say is correct, 2 people should be able to go to one asteroid, and do the act of wealth creation, and both should own the wealth and neither should have to steal from the other.
If it truly is some objective act of property creation/valuation/ownership, then you shouldn't be able to steal it by doing the same process. Just as if I make a chair, you can make a chair, and we can both have chairs, likewise I can have a computer program, you can copy it, and we both have them.
If you watch a skilled fisherman catch fish, you may learn a thing or two. He can't sue you for using his methods, but the fish he caught himself are nonetheless his. Good luck with your next fish, asteroid, or whatever else - but this one is mine because I got it first.
That cannot possibly happen. There is no end in sight to human ingenuity of using existing resources more efficiently to provide greater value to more people, and there is no end in sight to how huge the universe is and all the resources contained therein. (If we do reach a cosmic limit a billion years from now, I will adjust my philosophy accordingly.)
So your advice to somebody born without any land, and thus incapable of excercising their rights without violating the rights of others, is to leave Earth?
If you are actually generating wealth, as apposed to just saying somethings yours, then there should be something that wasn't there before.
I bless the ocean, thus making wealth, where there was none. I would now like to charge anyone $100 to travel or otherwise use the ocean.
What counts as "wealth" is purely in peoples head, so it can never be a standard for becoming owner of previously unowned land, as there would be no legitimate owner in any dispute.
I think how you homesteaded an asteroid didn't create any wealth, you do, you think you own the asteroid, I think you don't. Neither of us is objectively right or wrong [...]
... here's what you append to all your forum posts if you want every person viewing them to hammer maqs.com for ~8MB of bandwidth: |
As I've already explained, the mere act of homesteading creates value. By getting there and proving that the homesteaded property is mine (i.e. no one got there before me), I've made it more accessible to the people who didn't get there before me, but may now be interested in buying it. I've made an effort to bring this property into the human economy, and my ownership of it is my reward.
What counts as "wealth" is purely in peoples head, so it can never be a standard for becoming owner of previously unowned land, as there would be no legitimate owner in any dispute.
The humanity wasn't created with an instruction manual on how to live rightly, we had to evolve from primordial goo and figure it out for ourselves. We've made many huge mistakes along the way: "divine right" of governments, wars, failure to recognize the property rights of more primitive cultures (or fairly document the exchange of land for trinkets), colonization, altruism, democracy, and so on. But that doesn't mean we can't be civilized and recognize the natural human right to property going forward.
If you don't own the space you occupy you don't own yourself. As the libertarian ethical system is derived from the axiom of self-ownership, there's absolutely nothing libertarian about Geolibertarianism.