Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by the_austrian

  1. No, but that's not the same, in the end we need to decide who gets the final word when both people want to sleep in a single bed.
  2. No, that's why I said sneaks in; no damage to property. Or does this only apply to vessels on the sea, not land??
  3. Sure, but if you're using the gun that demonstrates the view that there is such a thing as land rights, above simply property rights. Until the better solution arrives we are left with the use of force.
  4. Let's just suppose they do, they might not feel bothered about building a nice house and have less of a problem with (infringements on) personal space than the occupier. If they didn't want to then we wouldn't be having this discussion because then rights would not be ambiguous. If you presuppose that people don't violate what they have no right to have the use of then there would not be an issue and property rights (yes, including land) would never have arisen to begin with.
  5. What happens if someone sneaks in, can you remove them?
  6. And land cannot be owned because it has not been created, by hand... Fine but what's to stop someone sleeping in your house if you don't want them, do you reject any arguments from utility?
  7. Just as a point of clarity, when you say economic rent, is this just normal rent, what is rent that doesn't qualify as economic rent? Not wanting to be pedantic, just wanting to understand clearly. My complaint about placing a tax on rental income alone would be that there is nothing intrinsically damaging about rent, is it not preferable if you have an empty house to rent it to someone who cannot be bothered to build their own?
  8. That's cool, but my guess is that you are reading into things more than is apposite. Just because a person mentions property or the difficulties of being born into poverty does not require them to be a Statist.
  9. If you want to scream Socialist!! at me that's fine you are barking at the wind.
  10. I guess that saved you some time from trawling through the first few pages of the thread
  11. Can we go back to this question: Is there a reason to think that normal taxes such as Income Tax, VAT are more robust a source of revenue than a Land Tax? Why so? The aim of a Land Tax over Income Tax is not that it can give revenue, the reverse, that it has appealing externalities; rentiers don't like it and the tenant class are protected from the inequality in property ownership.
  12. Since that comment by Injin was addressed to me, can you tell me how anything said by me suggests either of your two claims??
  13. And if this results in more land being available the Land Tax has served its purpose. A citizen's dividend is justified only because we are excluded from the land which we should have a right to, both in towns and in the countryside. If prices fall, good, we can all go about our lives living in housing which costs a reasonable price and with access to land so that we can freely produce our own food without renting a field from a rentier farmer.
  14. The penalty for failure to pay would be the withholding of consent to defend your property from poachers and squatters.
  15. The point of a Land Tax is not so the Government can do more for us, it is so that they can do less. Its purpose is to construct a battle between the rentiers and the Statists, whoever loses we can accommodate ourselves to the loss.
  16. Is there a reason to think that normal taxes such as Income Tax, VAT are more robust a source of revenue than a Land Tax? Why so?
  17. The problem we have at the moment is that the Means of Production are held by too few people. This gives legitimacy to entitlement ideas which would have no currency otherwise. We would be well served to address this issue. Allowing the Government to redistribute wealth is problematic because, as we see when people give charitably to despotic regimes, it rarely ends up in the hands of the intended recipients. Don't expect the Government to ever get around to giving the wealth to the little man, person. The grasping hands of the Government are sticky. A better approach, it would seem to me, would be to reduce the possibility for any one person to own too great an extent of the Means of Production. So a very simple example, in the case of the subjects of labour, would be to place a ceiling or cap on the ownership of property, or land. To give an example, it might be illegal to own more than 10 acres of arable land, or 2 acres of urban land, something like that.
  18. There is a free market whenever force is not involved, it happens all the time when you collaborate at work, or at home, or with friends. Anything where you have the right and ability walk away without physical harm is a free market.
  19. It makes sense to combine the two because the justification for a citizen's wage is land inequality. If we each had our own suitable plot of land upon which to raise our families then there would be no reason for a citizen's wage, but because we are prevented from growing crops by the land rights enforced by the State, we are owed compensation.
  20. The wages are reduced because it is now less expensive to employ the machine to do the work, we don't employ people to do our washing by hand any more because we have machines to do that now. The old washers are not owed any money because they have a redundant skill. We are owed an income if we have produced it, we are not owed an income from someone else. In what manner is the principle not extended to other people, please can you give an example or state how this is so? The difficulty of achieving something does not affect its price, it might be difficult to run a marathon, but there is no monetary reward for doing so unless someone has offered to pay for it. We have no right to demand an income from those who are not free to refuse. Whatever someone will pay for it.
  21. The management does not owe compensation to the workers for new technology. That is not to say that I dismiss the troubles arising from the lack of demand for labour which results, only that the issue does not lie with the management of the company. I don't want to speak about Bogbrush's position too much because I might mischaracterise it and I guess I wouldn't have too much against it either. There are issues to concern ourselves with when it comes to mechanisation and technology but it doesn't mean Capitalists owe anyone an income, if anything we are owed property, the Means of Production... but this must come via the Government, or at least it is they who would deny ownership to the Capitalists. There is no theft going on here, for that to have been the case we would need to see an illegitimate transfer of assets which has not been identified. Also, it's not accurate to label Libertarianism as the dogma with no respect for humanity, or morals. Neither Statism or Libertarianism have a monopoly or are absent of morality, both can be framed with or without.
  22. I would agree that we all should be paid according to the wealth that we create, and equally, according to how easy we are to replace. I assume Bogbrush makes no special claim for himself. Should we not be paid according to what we crate, or our replaceability?
  23. Why not be more optimistic? To which generation do we delegate these reforms??
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.