possible exception to 'taxation is theft'?

[afterzir]

I just heard of "geolibertarianism".

Here is the short wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

Although taxes are bad, I sometimes think that land taxes encourage people to be productive with the land.

Is this ideology sound?

The article says that no one owns the land.  This might be problematic.

Any thoughts?

[WasatchMan]

Could all people extract taxes from all people for use of land?  Would it be theft for some to tax and not for others? What grants the tax collectors the special privilege to collect taxes from land owners that would make it theft for others to do that?

[Slavik]

I just heard of "geolibertarianism".

Here is the short wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

Although taxes are bad, I sometimes think that land taxes encourage people to be productive with the land.

Is this ideology sound?

The article says that no one owns the land.  This might be problematic.

Any thoughts?

No one owns the land until someone cultivates it, places a house on it, fence etc. Then the person who has cultivated it, owns it.  

[LibertarianSocialist]

If I remember the concept correctly, it rests on the premise of the Lockean Proviso that ownership of private property is legitimate so long as it causes no-one to be worse off were there no private property at all. It is an interesting attempt at compensation for those who by no fault of theirs were given insufficient amounts, no, or poor quality land.

 

As WasatchMan says, it does pose several problems. Who decides who taxes who, and in what amounts?

Other problems exists such as the likely resurrection of the state via a privileged class of tax bureaucrats working in collusion with landowners. (One bureaucrat simply maintains he needs bodyguards to see that "justice" is done.) Overall it seems like it would likely need a large dedicated organizational body with supreme decision making authority backed by military force, to undertake such a complex feat of redistribution. An organizational body which would be almost identical to a state.

 

Having said that I am hardly knowledgeable on the subject.

 

Overall I think that the problem of the Lockean Proviso is far better addressed by a system of personal property (also known as possession rights or usufruct) employed by all strains of social anarchism.

[shirgall]

It's not theft when it's voluntary. If I vote for a tax, it's not theft for me to pay it.

[LibertarianSocialist]

It's not theft when it's voluntary. If I vote for a tax, it's not theft for me to pay it.

I think the idea of the land tax is involuntary compensation for an involuntary imposition. That is, the proprietor cannot decide to reject paying the compensatory tax whilst simultaneously imposing an involuntary state of affairs on others.

[shirgall]

I think the idea of the land tax is involuntary compensation for an involuntary imposition. That is, the proprietor cannot decide to reject paying the compensatory tax whilst simultaneously imposing an involuntary state of affairs on others.

 

Private property is not "imposing an involuntary state of affairs on others."

[LibertarianSocialist]

Private property is not "imposing an involuntary state of affairs on others."

If land is something which no man created, it stands that each man's right to it must be equal. As land is finite, it stands that past a certain point, all acquisitions must be had at the expense of another man's potential to own it himself. If some men are allowed to take all the land, any additional men must be necessarily deprived. If those who are deprived are those who's births came later than the time of acquisition, it stands they could not consent to the acquisition, that it must have been imposed. The deprivation of one man by another of what is rightfully his, done without the possibility of his consent, that is imposed, ought not to be permitted in any just society.

[shirgall]

If land is something which no man created, it stands that each man's right to it must be equal. As land is finite, it stands that past a certain point, all acquisitions must be had at the expense of another man's potential to own it himself. If some men are allowed to take all the land, any additional men must be necessarily deprived. If those who are deprived are those who's births came later than the time of acquisition, it stands they could not consent to the acquisition, that it must have been imposed. The deprivation of one man by another of what is rightfully his, done without the possibility of his consent, that is imposed, ought not to be permitted in any just society.

 

The ability to improve land is also finite which greatly mitigates the rest of what you are asserting. No one takes all the land except governments.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Nope. You can't agree to the tax for yourself (as it would no longer be a tax but a voluntary payment) so you can't agree to it for others. 

The land owner being taxed would also have to tax the community for the land the occupy with their homes. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

If land is something which no man created, it stands that each man's right to it must be equal. As land is finite, it stands that past a certain point, all acquisitions must be had at the expense of another man's potential to own it himself. If some men are allowed to take all the land, any additional men must be necessarily deprived. If those who are deprived are those who's births came later than the time of acquisition, it stands they could not consent to the acquisition, that it must have been imposed. The deprivation of one man by another of what is rightfully his, done without the possibility of his consent, that is imposed, ought not to be permitted in any just society.

You need to define "land". A 6th level apartment could be "land". Technically cyberspace could be called "land" as people can occupy it and turn it into real value.  What does "right to it" mean? A right to what? Stand on it? Work it? Exclude others from it? Poison and destroy it? 

How are all acquisitions at the expense of another man's potential of owning it? People can buy or rent the land or buy the products of the land (which is the the same as owning part of it). In fact you are often better off NOT owning the land.

How are all men capable of owning land? Many men are barely capable of ownership of their own bodies. 

How does it "stand" that because those who were born later are being imposed on? When you live in a house do you feel imposed upon that the land was used without your consent? NOT owning the land without your consent ALSO deprives you of the produce of that land. So either way you would be imposing; which makes your notion contradictory. Iow, if you do it you're imposing and if you don't you're imposing. Personally I would rather be born into a world were every single inch of land is already owned than into a world were little of it is owned. That way the land is already producing value and I can more easily acquire it through a voluntary exchange of value. 

Your theory of what is just with regards to land ownership is a complete logical mess. I think your problem and that of most socialists is that you think "land" is free. 

[shirgall]

Nope. You can't agree to the tax for yourself (as it would no longer be a tax but a voluntary payment) so you can't agree to it for others. 

The land owner being taxed would also have to tax the community for the land the occupy with their homes. 

 

My distinction is that only the people that vote for a tax (or a change to a tax) are obligated to pay it.

[LibertarianSocialist]

You need to define "land". A 6th level apartment could be "land". Technically cyberspace could be called "land" as people can occupy it and turn it into real value.  What does "right to it" mean? A right to what? Stand on it? Work it? Exclude others from it? Poison and destroy it? 

How are all acquisitions at the expense of another man's potential of owning it? People can buy or rent the land or buy the products of the land (which is the the same as owning part of it). In fact you are often better off NOT owning the land.

How are all men capable of owning land? Many men are barely capable of ownership of their own bodies. 

How does it "stand" that because those who were born later are being imposed on? When you live in a house do you feel imposed upon that the land was used without your consent? NOT owning the land without your consent ALSO deprives you of the produce of that land. So either way you would be imposing; which makes your notion contradictory. Iow, if you do it you're imposing and if you don't you're imposing. Personally I would rather be born into a world were every single inch of land is already owned than into a world were little of it is owned. That way the land is already producing value and I can more easily acquire it through a voluntary exchange of value. 

Your theory of what is just with regards to land ownership is a complete logical mess. I think your problem and that of most socialists is that you think "land" is free.

 

'Land' is that thing which exists under our feet, it is fairly evident. All those other claims are called 'capital' (though strictly speaking they are are a composite of land and labour).

The right to land is the right to possess it, to utilize it and derive fruits from it. It was not made by anyone and so cannot be owned by anyone. People can only exercise their right to use it, in equal measure with others, and to own that capital which springs forth from it.

 

The ability of one to utilize his land is of no concern to anyone else. If he cannot utilize his land that is his misfortune, but to say this makes him ineligible to what is his is unjust and authoritarian. Who decides his proficiency? If I am a better driver than you, does that give me the right to commandeer your car?

 

"NOT owning the land without your consent ALSO deprives you of the produce of that land."

 

If I withhold the land which I am not using, cannot yet use, surely I am depriving him? However, should I assert my rightful stake he would have to vacate, my right to equal measure is greater than his right of surplus at my expense. Your argument seems to imply it would be imposing for him to not produce for you. There is a big difference in imposing and withholding, no man has an obligation to produce for another. But you know this already.

 

Imagine a scenario of an island. 10 people colonize the island, each asserting their right to 1/10th, though in practice they may utilize less or more if consented to. Now imagine the population doubles as the population grows to 20. For the previous 10 to retain their property they must exclude ownership by the latter 10. The latter did not, could not consent, the decision was imposed on them. And of what right do the former have to the land? They mixed their labour it is true, but should that only entitle them to the capital which springs forth, not the land itself?

 

If an entity, call it Gaia, decides to distribute all her belongings equally among humanity present and future, and I come along before they are yet handed out and scribble my name on them all, am I entitled to them? It would be seen as unjust no matter how much I protested that my labour had been mixed with them, because I mixed my labour knowing they were destined for other people. If I however utilized the objects until the time others came to claim their portion, I have not deprived them in any way, and my usage is justified so long as I relinquish them to their rightful owner.

 

Land is free, how can it not be? Did you create the land? Did anyone? Even homesteading acknowledges land is free, and goes about distributing it. What is not free is the capital which uses and has been built upon, land. This however is a separate entity to land, and the land is no more mine than the car I build from automobile parts I had stolen. Even if the labour I expended makes the majority mine, it is just for the owners to take it back, even if they must "steal" back my significant labour expenditure which has become inseparable from the parts.

[Troubador]

Ok genuine question as in this instance I'm really just finding my way around this topic. This isn't meant as a challenge or strawman, but would this apply to finite resources within the land? Say you discover gold, uranium, oil or whathaveyou? It would require your labour to extract them, but you are in essence removing a component of that land (and presumable a portion of what future generations could be heir too). Does the act of labour in literally tearing a valuable piece of the land itself makes its totality yours from that day forward? In addition once you've strip mined and rendered the remaining land pretty useless for anything else, what is the sensible way going forward from there?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

My distinction is that only the people that vote for a tax (or a change to a tax) are obligated to pay it.

Yeah. People will voluntarily agree to a "tax" but refuse to make it voluntary.

[LibertarianSocialist]

Ok genuine question as in this instance I'm really just finding my way around this topic. This isn't meant as a challenge or strawman, but would this apply to finite resources within the land? Say you discover gold, uranium, oil or whathaveyou? It would require your labour to extract them, but you are in essence removing a component of that land (and presumable a portion of what future generations could be heir too). Does the act of labour in literally tearing a valuable piece of the land itself makes its totality yours from that day forward? In addition once you've strip mined and rendered the remaining land pretty useless for anything else, what is the sensible way going forward from there?

Yes, you are right. Though it should be stated that one does not need to provide those entitled with a certain "allocated" piece of land, but rather something of equivalence. Geolibertarianism says an equivalent amount of money will do. Therefore one does not need to give those entitled the base materials which he has already used if he can provide the entitled with a sufficient alternative. If 10 people live on an island and mine 5 tonnes each of iron of a total supply of 100, if another 10 come there is still sufficient for them. If there was only 50 tonne, the former would have to share. It could be said though that the second 50 tonnes is significantly harder to mine, thus of less quality, certainly of less quality if it was completely strip mined, I don't know how this would play out, really good question. I might make another post after I have thought about this.

 

It should be said that I am actually a Libertarian Communist, and so find much of the ideas I argue for contain many absurdities to me, but I will keep an open mind to them as alternative or preferential solutions under particular contexts. For instance, I personally find the concept of an individual fruit of labour absurd given all production is social.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

'Land' is that thing which exists under our feet, it is fairly evident. All those other claims are called 'capital' (though strictly speaking they are are a composite of land and labour).

The right to land is the right to possess it, to utilize it and derive fruits from it. It was not made by anyone and so cannot be owned by anyone. People can only exercise their right to use it, in equal measure with others, and to own that capital which springs forth from it.

 

The ability of one to utilize his land is of no concern to anyone else. If he cannot utilize his land that is his misfortune, but to say this makes him ineligible to what is his is unjust and authoritarian. Who decides his proficiency? If I am a better driver than you, does that give me the right to commandeer your car?

 

"NOT owning the land without your consent ALSO deprives you of the produce of that land."

 

If I withhold the land which I am not using, cannot yet use, surely I am depriving him? However, should I assert my rightful stake he would have to vacate, my right to equal measure is greater than his right of surplus at my expense. Your argument seems to imply it would be imposing for him to not produce for you. There is a big difference in imposing and withholding, no man has an obligation to produce for another. But you know this already.

 

Imagine a scenario of an island. 10 people colonize the island, each asserting their right to 1/10th, though in practice they may utilize less or more if consented to. Now imagine the population doubles as the population grows to 20. For the previous 10 to retain their property they must exclude ownership by the latter 10. The latter did not, could not consent, the decision was imposed on them. And of what right do the former have to the land? They mixed their labour it is true, but should that only entitle them to the capital which springs forth, not the land itself?

 

If an entity, call it Gaia, decides to distribute all her belongings equally among humanity present and future, and I come along before they are yet handed out and scribble my name on them all, am I entitled to them? It would be seen as unjust no matter how much I protested that my labour had been mixed with them, because I mixed my labour knowing they were destined for other people. If I however utilized the objects until the time others came to claim their portion, I have not deprived them in any way, and my usage is justified so long as I relinquish them to their rightful owner.

 

Land is free, how can it not be? Did you create the land? Did anyone? Even homesteading acknowledges land is free, and goes about distributing it. What is not free is the capital which uses and has been built upon, land. This however is a separate entity to land, and the land is no more mine than the car I build from automobile parts I had stolen. Even if the labour I expended makes the majority mine, it is just for the owners to take it back, even if they must "steal" back my significant labour expenditure which has become inseparable from the parts.

"Land" is not really that evident and much of what you might call "land" may be man-made or shaped by man.  If you can have destroyed/despoiled land then you can have improved / enhanced land, right? So it's not just all some raw natural resource. I think that's what you're calling "capital" "; which is confusing as it may not be capital in the general sense of the word (assets to be used in the production of goods/services). So I'm going to call it property because that's accurate. 

This right to possess, utilize and derive fruits from land does not mean you own it. That just means you happened to have enclosed it in order to use it. But you appear to be saying land cannot be owned at all because no one made it, right?

Capital or property does not "spring forth". I know that seems nit-picky but socialists tend to use this language of the Earth providing magically. 

 

The ability of someone to use their "land" IS of concern to others because it's others misfortune when they have to work or pay to fix it or clean it up. Rights come with responsibilities. The car analogy doesn't work because according to you the car is not land. If it was then by your same standard everyone would have a right to car. 

 

I'm not arguing that it would be imposing for the person not to produce for you. I was responding to your claim that those who are born later are being imposed upon because they didn't consent to the land acquisition in question. But they also didn't consent to NOT acquiring the land (they didn't consent or not consent to anything). So by your standard NOT acquiring the land would ALSO be an imposition. IOW, if you do it you're imposing and if you don't you're imposing. See? 

 

In your Island example it's true that the new children did not consent to the previous people owning X amount of land but they also did not consent to them NOT owning it. In fact I'm sure the children would be glad their parents own the land. If mixing your labor only entitles you to the property and not the land then the property cannot be owned is it is at some point part of the land. Sometimes the raw land BECOMES the property. A farmer can transform useless land into fertile land? If a new person comes along and claims their share do they get the fertility along with the raw land or does the great farmer have to work to return that part of the land back to uselessness. There are so many ways this breaks down logically not to mention practically. 

 

Sorry but we're not talking about a Gaia entity handing out things equally. This is the socialist projection of childhood childhood (were everyone gets an equal share and we have to make room if a new baby comes along, etc) on to the world. That's not reality. You are conflating equality with fairness. Fairness is not equality. You have no inherent right to some equal portion of "land", nor do you have some inherent right to acquire the land of someone else who's earned ownership simply because you also happen to exist. The world is not your parents. 

 

Land is NOT free. In order for something to be free is has to be a value you received in exchange for no significant labor/time. But land is not a value until you make it one. In fact it's often a dis-value as there's plenty of land you definitely DON'T want. 

 

Your last argument was a justification for theft based on this arbitrary declaration of equal land distribution and as such it also fails. 

 if he can provide the entitled with a sufficient alternative. 

You're not entitled. We didn't give birth to you, your parents did. They owe you, we don't.