/liberty/ - Liberty

Pro: Libertarianism

Con: Georgism

>>75603

what exactly is Georgism?

I keep hearing the term but never knew what it meant

>>75610

is Christian Mutualism attainable?

>>75612

Depends, how much soy do you consume on a daily basis?

>>75610

Georgist anarchism is a thing, you know.

>>75626

Hence "and/or a massive AI with data inputted into it." As ironic as it is for me to say it given my ideology, "Georgist Anarchism" is an oxymoron since you can't have Georgism without a state apparatus to institute its claims.

>>75783

>Nothing wrong with redistributing wealth that was gained illegitimately i.e. denying the usufructuary right to natural resources via violence

<what is the right to property?

>>75784

If a thief steals a 100 bucks from me, is it wrong if I take it back?

>>75621

are you asking because you wanna suck my dick in return?

>>75783

So you would have a government of some sort to enforce this then?

>>75786

>If you own 100 bucks, you stole it from me

>>75934

No one should seriously reply to you because you've chosen "le smug meme anime girl" as your image. Despite this I will do so. The notion that "nothing means nothing, man" (insofar as nothing is owned except what is "appropriated" from "the commons") isn't what I'd call solid, however, let's assume it's true. So, then things look like this:

>no one owns anything by default

>in order for someone to own something they have to "appropriate" (steal) it from everyone who doesn't own it (which implies they do own it, meaning everyone owns everything by default)

>in order to justify this theft of something that both no one and everyone owns, the individual must pay taxes to some governing body

>the governing body, therefore, has the special claim of owning everything

So, basically, a plot of land you buy in this system is owned by: Everyone, No one, You and The Government. That's a lot of owners - it's also a lot of nonsense.

>>75934

>Nobody created land or any natural resource

Excuse you? Jesus Christ created it

>Before private ownership, they are part of the commons. If you appropriate a piece of the commons and shoot anyone who disagrees with your notion, it is you who is the aggressor, not the "trespasser"

Property rights were granted to Adam in the garden, see Genesis 1:29-30. There was never a time when all land was owned by everybody, it was either not owned, or owned privately.

>>75938

Hey, it wasn't me who started posting kemono grills.

Before anyone claims ownership over a piece of land, it is available for everyone to use. Whether you consider this to mean that it's owned by everyone or no-one is just semantics. The point is that no individual has a greater right to it over others.

The Government is ideally just a tool of the society and if society can do without it, or if the tool grows into a cancerous institution, using violence to justify it's own existence, I'm all for it's removal.

>>75943

I don't think the Georgist LVT system must be implemented everywhere. If you live alone in the middle of bumfuckistan, you don't have to adhere to any societal rules since there is no society. If people can resolve their conflicts peacefully and voluntarily otherwise, no problem. However any sizable group of people is going to have inner disagreements and if the disagreements are concerning land use, then I see Georgism as an efficient and practical alternative to communist and capitalist systems. My rationale is that property rights, like any other rights, are social constructs that serve utilitarian purposes. If you believe that some supernatural authority gave you those rights, well then I might as well argue with an astrologist.

>Wealth can be created and destroyed

And I argue that more wealth will be created in a georgist system.

>No, what you stated is an opinion.

Unless perfectly rational beings exist who can perfectly perceive reality, everything people believe and say is based on their limited understanding of the world. Do I have to clarify this in every sentence I say?

>>75986

>Before anyone claims ownership over a piece of land, it is available for everyone to use.

This can be applied just as well to any raw material. Anyone could use a piece of impure iron ore, or a handful of sand in the desert. Do we have to compensate everyone who could possibly have used that iron ore as a stool if we work with it, even though we are the only ones who put in the labor necessary to acquire that ore?

It's obvious that we don't have to pay someone in China a dollar for depriving him of a good that he didn't know existed, and never would've acquired in his lifetime. Why make an exception for land? Ling Long would never have sat foot on a tract of land in the middle of Ireland. So, why pay him compensation? He is better off because of his supposed deprivation. The same is true of everyone who is deprived of a resource that he didn't use, whether he could've done so or not. The geographical distance only makes this readily apparent, but it makes no difference in principle. Georgism compensates people for usages they didn't draw.

Another related problem is that Georgians take it as an axiom that unused land is owned in common. Why shouldn't it be owned by no one? And yes, that makes a difference. You don't get compensated when someone damages property you didn't own, even if it's possible you could've owned it some time in the future.

>And I argue that more wealth will be created in a georgist system.

Do you really? Because most Georgists I know (I haven't followed this discussion from beginning to end) argued along ethical lines.

>>75986

>And I argue that more wealth will be created in a georgist system.

How so when there is less incentive to develop land that one must pay tax on? There is also disincentive to work as one can live off the passive income from others' productivity.

>>75989

There is an argument to be made for Pigouvian taxes against overconsumption of natural resources and for reducing pollution, but the biggest difference between taxing land and taxing the extraction of raw materials is looking at how such policies would affect economic behaviour. Taxing the extraction of resources disincentivizes utilizing these resources, meaning less people would be motivated to actually be productive. Occupying land doesn't require any labor though. Taxing land disincentivizes hoarding and inefficient use of the land, meaning people owning high value land, such as that in the middle of a metropolis, would either have to provide a useful enough service to make enough profits to afford it, or sell it to someone who can make better use of it.

Concerning the compensation of people who would have never used the land, geographical distance does matter. That's why I advocate for local communities or municipalities operating autonomously, not for one global government. I agree that people who are not affected by being excluded from something they never would have even seen don't need to be compensated.

I do believe that damaging/polluting air for example is something that should be economically disincentivized as well, since everyone bears the cost of that externality, even if nobody in particular owns air.

Personally I argue for Georgism along more utilitarian lines rather than natural rights or

normative objective morals.

>>75993

There is not less incentive to develop land, there is less incentive to hold land and not do anything with it. The tax is based on raw land value, not counting the improvements on it. Concerning UBI, that's something that needs to be tested more before I'll hold a strong opinion on it. Maybe the social safety net will be a net benefit, shifting the bargaining power more from employers to employees. Well compared to the status quo I think it will definitely be an improvement, but when comparing two hypothetical societies I can't really say.

>>75995

>There is an argument to be made for Pigouvian taxes against overconsumption of natural resources and for reducing pollution

No, there isn't. The reciprocal cost problem applies in all circumstances.

>>76043

Can you explain further?

>>76050

Instituting a value-adjusted pigovian tax will result in an ever-incrrasing tax rate as the taxpayer attempts to minimize externalities, subsequently causing the value of the tax rate to rise. For example, if a power plant has to pay an emissions tax, decreasing emissions will make the surrounding land more desirable, causing the taxable value of subsequent emissions to increase.

>>75995

>There is not less incentive to develop land,

How so comparing a taxed vs. non-taxed system?

>there is less incentive to hold land and not do anything with it.

As far as I know, the only absentee owner is government or a utility/chartered organization,, so it is not an ancap/libertarian concern.

>>76207

I don't see how developing land would be be negatively affected by a land tax.

So in an ancap society absentee ownership would not exist?

>>76212

Suppose that the venture currently using the developed land just meet profit.. Introducing a tax will make the venture unprofitable. And as a barrier to entry, a land tax could prevent the land from being used at all.

In ancap society, absentee ownership is essentially abandoned property, similar to adverse possession.

>>76328

If the venture barely makes profit with zero taxes, yet has the privilege of a land title, a land value tax would force it to either use the land more effectively, develop it further, or sell it to someone else who can do the aforementioned.

There is already a barrier to entry: the land price. LVT would drive down the initial purchase price of land since holding a land title would no longer be without cost. Land speculators would offer less, because they have to consider the cost of holding the land along with the cost of acquiring the land and land holders who wish the sell their title would sell it for cheaper since the faster they can get rid of it, the less LVT they have to pay.

If the land in question is unowned and unused then it's value should be low enough that paying the LVT would be no issue.

>In ancap society, absentee ownership is essentially abandoned property, similar to adverse possession.

How would that differ from a mutualist society?

>>76359

>paying a tax on land you own to someone who's business it isn't to decide what you do with your property

Im going to buy a million lands and just sit on them to spite you

>>76360

Good luck with trying to enforce those claims.

>>76359

That's just shifting demand.

>>75598

pros

-not edgy so can be more popular

cons

-unfair

>>76412

Tell me ancaps, do people have the right to the property they obtained in the current unfree market?

>>76422

If the property was obtained either by the transformation of natural resources or the voluntary exchange of those resources.

>>76426

How would one determine if the property obtained was done so voluntarily. And how much does one have to transform land to gain exclusive rights to it?

>>76359

>a land value tax would force it to either use the land more effectively, develop it further, or sell it to someone else who can do the aforementioned.

>If the land in question is unowned and unused then it's value should be low enough that paying the LVT would be no issue.

The venture is already incentivized towards higher efficiency simply by being in a competitive market, so the LTV would have no effect on this. Developing the land further (and thus meeting demand of society) would be hindered by the expense of paying an LTV. Selling would not be possible when no other venture can use a certain land profitably leaving the resources of the land idle. As a barrier to entry, the land would be more favorable to larger companies resulting in misallocation of resources via diseconomies of scale – this is essentially how licensing fees and minimum wage operates.

>There is already a barrier to entry: the land price

And why would you want to restrict the market on this, if it handles resources more efficiently without the tax? And who is to determine that the tax rate is “fair”? What if the tax increases beyond the peak of the Laffer curve?

>LVT would drive down the initial purchase price of land since holding a land title would no longer be without cost.

Not always the case. New Jersey has the highest per capita property taxes, yet one of the highest land prices.

>>76359

>How would that differ from a mutualist society?

Mutualists believe that a renters had abandoned property upon its occupation by a tenant. Ancaps state that the renter is actively inputting labor (maintenance) into the rental property and that it is not abandoned.

>>76725

>ancaps are delusional faggots

We already knew this

>>76725

>Ancaps state that the renter is actively inputting labor (maintenance) into the rental property and that it is not abandoned.

We're not stating that. My own take on this is that the renter, to keep being the owner of his property, must afford its maintenance. If he doesn't, and his property becomes desolate, then he loses his rights over it. However, it's required that it becomes desolate, because otherwise, what labor he put in in the past still has an effect, and as long as it does, it is just that he owns his property and not anyone else.

>>76724

>The venture is already incentivized towards higher efficiency simply by being in a competitive market, so the LTV would have no effect on this.

Just because it is already incentivized doesn't mean it can't be further.

>Developing the land further (and thus meeting demand of society) would be hindered by the expense of paying an LTV.

Again, only the occupation of land is hindered, not development.

>Selling would not be possible when no other venture can use a certain land profitably leaving the resources of the land idle.

When nobody can use the land profitably then nobody would want to buy it, thus lowering the market value along with the tax. It is a self-correcting mechanism.

>As a barrier to entry, the land would be more favorable to larger companies

Because they have more capital? Or because they are more profitable? If it's the former then that is already the case with land price. If it's the latter then the economies of scale outweigh the diseconomies.

>And why would you want to restrict the market on this, if it handles resources more efficiently without the tax?

If that's the case, I wouldn't, but there is no evidence that LVT would make the market more inefficient.

>And who is to determine that the tax rate is “fair”?

I can ask the same about the homesteading principle and the property obtained in status quo ante.

>What if the tax increases beyond the peak of the Laffer curve?

Trial and error is probably the best way to determine the tax rate.

>New Jersey has the highest per capita property taxes, yet one of the highest land prices.

It is also the most densely populated and the 3rd wealthiest state which arguably is a bigger factor in land price than the tax rate. And property tax is not the land tax anyway.

>>76738

>Just because it is already incentivized doesn't mean it can't be further.

You cannot incentivize someone who is already fully and actively incentivized. Everyone has a limit to their capacity.

>Again, only the occupation of land is hindered, not development.

So as long as I develop it and not occupy it, then I am not taxed? How is that even possible, if by developing it, I am already using the land? Also, why would land be developed without the expectation that it will be occupied?

>It is a self-correcting mechanism.

As I mentioned with NJ that this is not always the case. Especially when expense of the tax is so large that no one can occupy the land. Demand for land is inelastic here.

>Because they have more capital? If it's the former then that is already the case with land price.

See the comment above. This logic is similar enacting a tariff and expecting the price of imports to adjust accordingly.

> no evidence that LVT would make the market more inefficient.

Any tax causes inefficiency due to misallocation of resources. Taxes redistribute wealth but do not create it. It destroys wealth because of the added bureaucratic expense of tax collection/redistribution. We see this in trade liberalization where countries specialize in specific industries where they have a comparative advantage.

> Trial and error is probably the best way to determine the tax rate.

Who is to determine this tax rate? Some authoritative body? We already mentioned the inadequacy of state in determining this.

> It is also the most densely populated and the 3rd wealthiest state

Hence inelastic demand.

>>76743

>You cannot incentivize someone who is already fully and actively incentivized. Everyone has a limit to their capacity.

You're assuming that everyone will be working to their full capacity in your idea of a free market which is rather generous.

>So as long as I develop it and not occupy it, then I am not taxed? How is that even possible, if by developing it, I am already using the land…

Using something isn't the same as claiming ownership over it, by occupation I implied also the exclusion of others from the resource. By developing one usually wishes also to reap the fruits of their labour so they claim ownership over the land they're developing on.

>As I mentioned with NJ that this is not always the case.

NJ has a property tax which is an inefficient tax since land without improvements is taxed less than land with improvements.

>Especially when expense of the tax is so large that no one can occupy the land.

When no one can occupy the land then obviously the tax rate will be reduced. However, when the tax revenue is paid back as a citizen's dividend such a case shouldn't happen in the first place. Is there unowned land in NJ? It seems that the problem is that land is owned, but not used, which is alleviated by replacing the property tax with a land tax. The alternative way to solve the problem is occupancy & use property norms which I'm fine with as well, but which aren't probably as efficient.

>This logic is similar enacting a tariff and expecting the price of imports to adjust accordingly.

I don't see your point here, tariff is a one time tax on the import, not a tax on the continual ownership of the product and the supply of products isn't inelastic compared to land.

>Taxes redistribute wealth but do not create it.

If the tax fixes a market inefficiency then the increase in production outweighs the wealth lost in bureaucratic expense, especially if the tax collection and redistribution is mostly automated and done electronically. Something something not a zero-sum game.

>Who is to determine this tax rate?

Preferably the local community/municipality whose authoritative capacity is limited to boycotting and ignoring the land title if someone doesn't comply with the property norms.

>Hence inelastic demand.

Demand can't be perfectly inelastic.

>>76770

>You're assuming that everyone will be working to their full capacity in your idea of a free market

1. You are the one making the positive claim of an increased incentive towards efficiency from LVT. The onus is on you prove this.

2. If Competitor A is only partially motivated towards efficiency, while Competitor B who has more motivation towards efficiency, then Competitor B will trend towards providing a higher-quality, lower-cost (higher valued) product than Competitor A in the long-term and Competitor A would be unable to compete. The market then tends towards full motivation.

>Using something and developing isn't the same as claiming ownership over it

Then what constitutes a claim of ownership in Geolib?

>NJ has a property tax which is an inefficient tax since land without improvements is taxed less than land with improvements.

I don’t see much difference with that and LVT. Land with less productive capability would have no or little improvements upon it and would have a much lower LVT rate than more productive demand with more improvements.

>tariff is a one time tax on the import, not a tax on the continual ownership of the product and the supply of products isn't inelastic compared to land.

Whether it is a one-time tax or continuous is irrelevant, a commodity’s base cost can only be reduced so much in response to a tax increase because of inelastic demand. If you want another, example, how about sales/VAT taxes? Some imports and domestic products are more inelastic than land.

>If the tax fixes a market inefficiency

You have yet to provide proof for this.

>Preferably the local community/municipality whose authoritative capacity is limited to boycotting and ignoring the land title if someone doesn't comply with the property norms.

So this authoritative body is voluntary? If so, then this is no tax at all but a contractual payment and suitable in an ancap world.

>Demand can't be perfectly inelastic.

True, but we can expect a much higher tax rate than what is current in NJ to see any reasonable effect on land prices.

>>76808

Is "do X or else we'll violate your property claims and shoot you in self defense if you try to do anything about it" really that much more voluntary than "do X or else we'll throw you in prison and shoot you if you try to protect yourself"? Either way, you're given a choice between doing that thing and getting shot.

>>76910

i would rather be coerced not to kill than to pay taxes

>>77241

Who said all of those people would be given citizenship at once? Who said they'd all move there instead of just wanting dual citizenship?

>>77241

>>77246

And who said people couldn't also live on the other, smaller patches of unclaimed land on the Danube?

>>77246

>>77247

>implying you would rather start an indefensible one-man country or stay in Croatia than live in Land of the Free

>>77241

Why not build a car factory and get food from foreign trade?

>>77272

It makes you beholden and thus not-free to another country, and in terms of security a blockade could starve your country.

>>77276

The Danube river is an international waterway, which is why Croatia hasn't been able to keep people out so far.

>>77276

>Free trade is oppression

What did he mean by this?

>>77291

This is a good point, but Croatia was keeping people out of Liberland until 2017 at which point they decided boat patrols were uneconomical. Instead, they simply dismantled and stole the old lodge called "liberopolis".

>>77296

You can never claim to be independent if you rely upon other nations to buy your cars and sell you food.